1951-04-27

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to make a statement concerning comments reported in the Toronto Telegram, and supposed to have been made by Mr. John Fisher. Those comments were contained in articles on April 18, 19 and 24.	.
We have made investigations, and Mr. Fisher has furnished us with a statement which it is understood summarizes his remarks. It indicates that the immigration set-up as he observed it, first at Moncton and later at Montreal, is not geared to consider the tremendous human factor involved. He intimated' that there was some delay at Moncton while the medical officer was located; that physical conditions at Moncton were, to use his word, deplorable; that there was a further delay at Montreal, where they arrived after midnight, and that there was lack of personnel familiar with foreign languages to meet incoming immigrants. He ended up his statement with this remark:
May I report again that no immigrant was beaten, pushed or cowed, but that they were not given that extra welcome which should' go to any citizen coming to this land. The very human factors of excitement or emotion were apparently not considered.
The T.C.A. aircraft carrying Mr. Fisher, along with sixteen other returning residents, ten non-immigrants and fourteen immigrants, arrived at Moncton airfield at 8.40 p.m. on April 15. The fourteen immigrants consisted of nine British, three Germans, one Ukrainian, and one Lithuanian. Moncton is an emergency airfield that is used infrequently. There is only one immigration officer on duty, and he completed his immigration examination of the passengers in one hour and twenty-five minutes. This included the medical examination and the time taken to locate the doctor, who of course is not employed on a full-time basis. Hon. members will understand that this was a landing made at Moncton by an aircraft which was ordinarily intended to land in Newfoundland, but could not do so because of weather conditions.
As Mr. Fisher remarked, the building conditions at Moncton for the reception and examination of immigrants are not satisfactory. In this connection I should like to read from a letter which has come to us since from the resident manager of Allied Aviation Service Company at Moncton, in which he says:
I would like to say here that the Immigration officer in charge at Moncton has done all possible in his power to assist in every way the immigrants aboard these international aircraft, and all examinations are carried out in quick but quite efficient manner. It is true that the facilities here are not the best, but a new waiting room is at present being constructed, and when completed should be an asset to this station.
As a result of the report that the complaint was made with respect to the immigration officer at Moncton, Mr. Fisher wired the immigration inspector at the point in the following words:
Newspaper made bad mistake, because my blast at immigration red tape for immigrants concerned Montreal and not Moncton. Sorry your name erroneously involved. Your statement to paper perfectly correct. Regards.
John Fisher
There was no further examination of passengers on this plane by the immigration service at Dorval, because it had already taken place at Moncton.
With respect to the linguistic qualifications of immigration personnel at Montreal, in addition to English and French they are able to converse in Italian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Estonian, German, Polish, Greek, Arabic, Chinese, Yiddish, Ukrainian, Spanish, and1 have a working knowledge of Russian and Dutch.
Concerning Mr. Fisher's complaint that the reception of these immigrants lacked warmth, there is no question about the desirability of extending a welcoming hand to new Canadians, and this is being done as far as possible by departmental personnel and voluntary agencies; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is operating a very useful settlement service for immigrants -not available to immigrants in years gone by. There is, however, a limit to the extent to which provision can be made for services of this kind. This service is available at seaports where time between arrival of vessel and departure of train permits such reception. Hon. members will appreciate why similar arrangements are not feasible at airports.

Immigration
such as Dorval, or at border ports. The distance between Montreal and Dorval increases the difficulty to voluntary agencies in providing services at Dorval. Furthermore, air passengers are usually anxious to have their immigration and customs examinations completed rapidly so that they may proceed to their destination with as little delay as possible.
Respecting the handling of the particular flight on which Mr. Fisher was a passenger, in accordance with the policy of the department each immigrant was interviewed by an immigration officer to find out if he needed help, assistance or information. This took place while the baggage was being'unloaded from the aircraft, and the acting district superintendent of immigration at Montreal reports that the interviews were completed within five minutes.
Examination of prospective immigrants overseas and at Canadian ports of entry is necessary. The first is conducted to reduce the possibility of hardship on the immigrants themselves, which would result from rejection on arrival in Canada. The second is necessary because it is in Canada that landing or entry is granted.
Summed up: Mr. Fisher absolves the immigration officer in charge at Moncton, but says that facilities there are unsatisfactory. As I have said, better facilities are being constructed. Moncton is the point in Canada at which the only immigration examination of the passengers took place. At Dorval the examination of passengers related solely to customs-immigration officers participating only to the extent of offering advice and assistance. None of the customs or immigration officers at Dorval recalls any difficulty during the customs examinations and immigration interviews.
Like Mr. Fisher, I believe that we need more people in this country, and not only are we encouraging immigration but we are also helping and assisting the immigrants in becoming established.
We appreciate any criticism of this kind so that we may make our facilities better and larger.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I thank the minister for the very full report he has given. I join with him in expressing the hope that these officials will always be courteous and considerate, and will receive immigrants with that welcome which after all is of great importance to those coming to Canada for the first time.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Has he at any time received complaints about Gander in this

connection? About three months ago a gentleman who was coming to Canada from London told me of the difficulty experienced by a lady entering the country in making herself understood because the immigration official had an inadequate knowledge of French. This gentleman, whom I know very well, said that he did the translating in order to help out the lady. Has the minister had any complaints of that description?


Walter Edward Harris: We have had
some complaints with respect to the facilities at Gander, and there have been discussions with the Minister of Transport with respect to that. I am quite sure that improvements are being made. I have not had any complaint with respect to language difficulties, because we do our best to provide personnel that is trained as far as possible in the important languages with which we would ordinarily have to deal.



BUTTER AND CHEESE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I have indicated that I would make a statement today with regard to policy respecting cheese and butter for the coming year, and I wish to make that statement now.
With respect to cheese, the Ontario Cheese Producers Association has organized the Ontario cheese producers marketing board, under provincial legislation, which is prepared to undertake the marketing of the production of Ontario. The cheese producers have represented that they should receive at least 30 cents a pound for cheese.
It has been decided that it would be advisable that the producers and the trade be encouraged to market their own cheese. The government has agreed to cover the risk of carrying and marketing cheese up to twenty-eight cents a pound by agreeing to have the agricultural prices support board arrange for the taking over of all first grade Canadian cheddar cheese at a price of twenty-eight cents per pound f.o.b. Montreal, plus storage charges from the date of storage to the date of delivery to the board. The board reserves the right to specify the time of delivery, which will be not later than January 1, 1952.
Then with regard to butter, the govern^ ment has been asked to establish an incentive price under butter for the dairy year 1951-52, beginning May 1, 1951.
The experience of the past two years has convinced us that it is better to maintain a

floor price rather than an incentive price. It would appear that the floor maintained through the year 1949-50 of 58 cents a pound basis No. 1 creamery solids, Montreal, would have proven a reasonable floor to have maintained over a period of years and that incentive to produce would be effective if the time were extended to two years.
It has, therefore, been decided to ask the agricultural prices support board to arrange that the dairy products board of the Department of Agriculture will be prepared throughout the dairy years 1951-52 and 1952-53 to purchase butter at 58 cents a pound basis No. 1 creamery solids Montreal.
The dairy products board will continue the policy throughout that period of distributing butter obtained during the high production summer months through the trade during the low production winter months at prices which are considered fair to the consumer.
The creamery butter carried in storage on April 1, 1946, was 5,400,000 pounds; April 1, 1947, it was 15,400,000 pounds; April 1, 1948, it was 8,400,000 pounds; April 1, 1949, it was 12,700,000 pounds; on April 1, 1950, it was 27,900,000 pounds; and on April 1, 1951, it was 9,900,000 pounds. The increases and decreases during this period were influenced by importation of butter and the manufacture and sale of margarine.
The government has asked the dairy products board to make a survey of the carryover as of December 1 in each year, and, if it is found that there is not sufficient butter to carry the consumers through to April 1 with a normal carry-over, that the board negotiate with those countries whose butter is admitted to Canada on arrangement at a preferred duty for any amount required to be distributed through the trade on the same price arrangement as Canadian butter.
It is expected that this policy will result in the farmer receiving a fair return throughout his high production summer season and that the consumer will be assured a fair price during the high cost winter season.


Mr. Charlton:: Does the minister mean
that in case of shortage the dairy products board will purchase butter from the countries in which it is available?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the intention, yes.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Agriculture a question related to the announcement of the
Inquiries of the Ministry floor price for butter-which, I might say, I am sure will not meet with the approval of the dairy industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Minister of Agriculture assure the dairy industry at this time that recent reports in the press to the effect that the tariff on margarine coming into Canada will be removed are incorrect?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not a matter which comes directly under my department. The matter of granting permission for margarine to come into Canada under any duty rate, or in any manner whatsoever, really comes under customs, and I do not know what the intentions are with respect to amendments there. Amendments of the act that come under the Department of Agriculture have certain provisions which will affect the matter, but the real question is dealt with under customs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then may I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: There is nothing in my tariff proposals relating to margarine. If my hon. friend had taken the trouble to read them he would have seen that there is nothing there.


Mr. Knowles:: We have to take them all at once, after yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Read them separately.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a report in the last issue of the Financial Post to the effect that the South Saskatchewan irrigation project will be commenced this summer. Can the minister state whether that report is correct, and if so, whether construction work will commence this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I think the question can be best discussed when my estimate on that item is before the house.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G, Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister
[Stage Direction]
Hamilton Harbour Commission whether he will at the earliest possible day, and if possible Monday, table the correspondence between the government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces respecting the matter of the old age pension amendment, and also the question of the indirect tax. According to the press there has been some recent correspondence.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been some correspondence. I discussed with the Minister of Justice a couple of days ago the question of tabling what we had. I understood from him that he was in telegraphic or telephonic communication with some of the premiers, and that he preferred to have answers from them rather than table only a part. I can assure the hon. member that we are anxious to place that correspondence before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Because it has been referred to in the press.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Yes, but the press
frequently scoops the government, you know.



HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 196, respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain the bill?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could make the explanation in committee? If there is any objection I will do it now, but I would rather do it in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1- Short title.
Lionel Chevrier: Early in 1950 the Hamilton harbour commissioners requested the government to amend their present act so that they could conduct amusement, recreational and other facilities on their lands in the city of Hamilton. At that time they forwarded to the Department of Transport a resolution passed by the city of Hamilton asking that the commission's act be amended so that they could take over and administer the filtering basins bathing beach lands, subject to easements for municipal services, and the land to be used as a public bathing beach.
The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act was passed in 1912. Under that act they were given the powers that are usually given to similar bodies authorized to operate

harbours. I do not think there has been an amendment to the act since, but in view of the fact that there was no authority in the act of 1912 to provide for this particular operation it is necessary to amend the act in order to give the commissioners the required authority. That is what the bill seeks to do.
Bill No. 196 seeks first of all to give to the commissioners powers to conduct amusements, recreation grounds, playgrounds and bathing beaches on certain lands therein set out, and also to borrow money for that purpose. Of course the other provisions of the act will remain in effect. There is also a clause in the bill which extends the provisions of the 1912 act relating to jurisdiction to the present bill. It is a very simple amendment. Similar authority was requested on one other occasion by the Toronto harbour commissioners who some time ago decided they would like to operate certain facilities for recreational purposes. They have done so, and I am told quite profitably. The city of Hamilton seeks the same advantage and facilities. I would think this is a very simple measure which would obtain the consent of the house.


Howard Charles Green: I understand from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) that the authorities of the city of Hamilton are very anxious to have an amendment of this type put through. I also understand she has been discussing the bill with the minister, and apparently approves the terms. Therefore the official opposition has no objection to the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: It is true that the city council has requested this amendment. I have a letter to that effect. I also know that both members for Hamilton have evinced a great deal of interest in the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: I presume that the land is now used as a sort of public recreation ground, and possibly there are some bathing beaches open to the public. I notice that the bill authorizes charges to be made by the commissioners for the facilities. Has any opposition to this proposal been brought to the minister's attention, particularly with respect to the charges being made for the facilities? I am not opposing the bill. I ask the question only because I think we should know whether there is any opposition, particularly whether the ground of the opposition is that the charges would deprive persons of the opportunity to use the beaches who are now able to use them free.


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to that, I have no evidence of any opposition. On the contrary I would think this would be a very

excellent thing. So far as the powers are concerned the commissioners have the right to make a charge, but I should think they would use their discretion. If they follow the practice that is followed in Toronto, as I understand they intend to do, then I think it will be operated in the interests of the public with no charge, or only a very nominal charge.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a very satisfactory explanation. I am glad the minister has heard of no opposition to this step. It seems to be acceptable to the citizens of Hamilton, and that was the only interest I had in asking the question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
493. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1951-52 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951, $1,280,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I should explain that some time ago a motion was made to refer three of the votes, 493, 501 and 495, to the' committee on railways and shipping. They have been dealt with there and are now returned to the house. I wonder if we could not dispose of them now. Item 493 is the Prince Edward Island car ferry deficit vote; item 495 is the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships deficit vote, and 501 is the maritime freight rates vote, all of which have been considered by the committee on railways and shipping.
Supply-Transport


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to carry these three items now-493, 501 and 495?


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
503. Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $14,250.
John George Diefenbaker: When discussion on this subject was adjourned on April 13 I had brought to the attention of the minister the whole question of Canadian National Railways pensions. In answering me on that occasion, and following certain questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister said the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the government. Then he went on to use these words, as reported at page 2036 of Hansard:
I have to say that the government thus far has not been able to recommend or direct the Canadian National Railways to increase the basic pension upwards until such time as the matter of its own civil servants receives similar or adequate consideration. Then there is also the question of other groups that are in the same position as that of the Canadian National pensioners.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are they?


Lionel Chevrier: There are other groups affected' by inflation. There are a number of them. There are the pilots, other pension groups, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees, the provident fund group and, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs says, the old age pensioners themselves. It appears to me that this question cannot be disposed of piecemeal. and that until such time as it is possible to find a solution for the whole problem the government does not feel disposed thus far to direct the Canadian National Railways to deal with a portion only of the problem.
I	rise again at this time to bring to the attention of the minister the need of doing something on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and also on behalf of those who are at present employed and who come within the ambit of the pension system. At the risk of repetition I say the basic rate is $25 per month, which is being received by hundreds of pensioners and which no one today can seriously contend is a fair and reasonable basic pension. That amount was fixed in 1935. Since then the cost of living has increased by almost 100 per cent, and many of the former employees of the Canadian National who are in receipt of that basic pension find themselves unable to carry on. That is also true of those who have retired within the last few years. Among railway employees everywhere across this country there is a demand that the Canadian National Railways do something

Supply-Transport
about a pension system that is inadequate and ineffective. Something must be done, and without delay.
The answer given by the minister does not meet the situation. There is no reason at all why these pensioned employees of the Canadian National Railways should be placed in the position today of trying to get along on $25 a month. According to reports, over
7,000	former employees receive less than $40 a month, including 1,700 who receive only the basic pension of $25. I realize that an amendment is being considered at the present time, in agreement with the provinces, which will permit the assumption by the dominion of complete responsibility for old age pensions, and making provision for a pension at seventy without a means test. These two plans, the present Canadian National Railways plan and the prospective old age pension scheme, should be worked in together, to render the pension system more equitable.
My second suggestion is that something be done about rewriting the pension fund rules and regulations. As they are now constituted they do not meet the case of many needy individuals. The strict interpretation of the rules with respect to seniority and continuity of employment deny to many a fair and reasonable pension. I point out that these rules are unjust to the railway employees who are veterans of world war I, who joined up immediately upon demobilization in 1918 or 1919. These men are given no credit for the time they were in the armed forces, and as a consequence many are denied the pension to which they would have been entitled had they made contributions for the period during which they were in the armed services. I make an appeal particularly on behalf of those who have been discharged from the service of the Canadian National Railways by reason of their approaching the age when they are required automatically to retire.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I wish now to refer, and I do so with some diffidence. I first called attention to this question in 1947, and throughout the years have contended that the $25 a month is. unreasonable and cannot be justified. Today private corporations are setting up pension schemes. I can well understand that when the government decides to bring in an overall pension plan for the retirement of aged people the difficulty will be to bring the national plan in line with those that are now being introduced by private corporations. Recently I was very much disturbed when, having brought this matter up, I received a great deal of correspondence-I mean just

that-from railway employees, and also from retired employees who are now living on this meagre pension. In no instance did any one of them say that he did not wish action taken before parliament and everything done that could be done to interest the government in taking the necessary action.
I	have here a copy of the record of the debate when I brought the matter to the attention of the minister on July 2, 1947. At that time the minister pointed out the difficulty of doing anything, and gave little or no hope that the basic pension of $300 per year would be increased. After the matter had been brought to the attention of the house again by myself and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I was astounded to find the president of the Canadian National Railways placing on the records of the railway committee the very letter that was forwarded to me, and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by the chairman of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers. I cannot understand that. I am surprised that the chairman of the order gave permission to the president of the railway to use that letter, which was written to me personally.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the letter was written not only to the hon. member personally but also to the president of Canadian National Railways, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I have the letter here. Copies were sent to the minister, and the president of the Canadian National Railways, but that letter was directed to Mr. John Diefenbaker, M.P., and then at the right, Mr. Stanley Knowles, M.P., and to no one else. At the end of the letter there is a note that copies were sent to Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Transport, and Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways. Surely a letter like that should not have been placed on the records of the railway committee. Since it has been, and since over the years I have advocated the need for something being done for the Canadian National Railways employees, I am going to make a reference to this letter now so that I may be in a position to give my answer to it. With the consent of the committee, instead of reading the letter I should like to put it on Hansard, because the minister has a copy of it. Have I the consent of the committee?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon. member leave to place the letter on Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: The letter is as follows:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS Canadian National Railway System Division No. 43
Winnipeg, Man.
April 12, 1951.
Mr. John Diefenbaker, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Stanley Knowles, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Gentlemen:
It has come to my attention that you asked some questions of the government in connection with C.N.R. pensions, and I would understand that it is your intention to ask further questions before the special committee, probably next week.
I wish to assure you, on behalf of the C.N.R. employees, that your interest in this matter is very sincerely appreciated, and we know the sincerity of your desire to improve the condition which we know only too well to be very bad indeed.
However, I would like to give you an outline in brief of the situation as it is at the moment.
Through our general chairmen's association we have been trying for some years to effect improvements, but have met with no success or encouragement until quite recently.
At our annual meeting, held in November, 1950, we had the pleasure of having Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the C.N.R., to address a joint meeting of our association and the representatives of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees. The combined meeting represented practically all organized labour on the C.N.R.
At our request Mr. Gordon spoke on the subject of pensions and told us that he realized that our present pension plan is inadequate and outdated. He promised to set up a committee of railway officers to meet with a corresponding number of representatives of organized labour to undertake to revise the existing rules.
He fulfilled his promise and set up a committee of high ranking officers. We, on our part, selected a committee of labour representatives drawn from the Canadian and international unions.
Negotiations have been carried on by the joint committee in a very co-operative atmosphere, and we have now reached the stage where certain concrete proposals are being considered, and the proposals have just been submitted to actuaries for their report and advice as to the cost to employer and employee of the various plans which are now under consideration.
It is expected to take at least six weeks to get a report from the actuaries, and following the receipt of that report it is intended that we proceed as rapidly as possible to revise the pension rules.
I feel very sure that we are finally on the way to completing a very satisfactory revision of the rules, and that it will not be delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary.
One of our prime objects is to improve the status of those who are now on pension, and we have reached tentative agreement on what can be done to improve their situation, but our plan is dependent to a great degree on the action of the government in regard to the institution of an old age pension at age seventy without a means test, and we earnestly solicit your continued support of that project.
As I said previously, we appreciate your action in asking questions and your interest on behalf of
Supply-Transport
the employees whom we represent. I wished to give you the facts in the matter and to say that I doubt that our interests would be advanced in any way by pressing the government or the railway officers for additional information at the present time.
I fear that pressure exerted now might result in hurried decisions which would not be as satisfactory as those we hope to reach by negotiations now in progress.
It would be appreciated if we could continue the present negotiations to a conclusion along the lines on which we are working.
If the conclusions reached are not satisfactory we will then hope to have the privilege of calling on your good selves and all our other friends in the house for such assistance as is necessary to reach a satisfactory solution of our problem.
In all fairness I cannot do other than say that I believe Mr. Gordon and his officers are doing all that is reasonably possible to co-operate with us in our present efforts, and the fact that this revision has been so long delayed is not the fault of the present administration of the railway.
I should have stated that I was elected to act as spokesman for the committee which was set up by the Canadian and international unions in matters pertaining to the revision of pension rules, so that you may regard this letter as being from the elected representatives of the employees.
Again thanking you for your interest on our behalf, and trusting that you will find it possible to comply with my suggestion that you do not press the matter too much at this time, I am,
Yours very sincerely,
A. A. Hutchinson, Chairman,
General Chairmen's Association, Canadian National Railways.
Having placed the letter on Hansard I now point out that, in effect, it says negotiations between the railway company and the Order of Railway Telegraphers have started. It says that a tentative arrangement has been discussed, and then this follows:
I fear that pressure exerted now might result in hurried decisions which would not be as satisfactory as those we hope to reach by negotiations now in progress.
I do not know what that means, but if it implies that bringing the matter before parliament on behalf of people who cannot speak in parliament will be detrimental, then I strongly take objection to any such view being expressed.
Finally, it deals with a- meeting that took place, and it says this:
It would be appreciated if we could continue the present negotiations to a conclusion along the lines on which we are working.
If the conclusions reached are not satisfactory we will then hope to have the privilege of calling on your good selves and all our other friends in the house for such assistance as is necessary to reach a satisfactory solution of our problem.
In all fairness I cannot do other than say that I believe Mr. Gordon and his officers are doing all that is reasonably possible to co-operate with us in our present efforts, and the fact that this revision has been so long delayed is not the fault of the present administration of the railway.

Supply-Transport
It is not for me to enter into that discussion. I have no views on that, but I do say that from July, 1947, until November, 1950, nothing has been done to meet the situation of these pensioners who find themselves unable to carry on. The letter concludes:
Again thanking you for your interest on our behalf, and trusting that you will find it possible to comply with my suggestion that you do not press the matter too much at this time. I am.
Yours very sincerely,
I mention that paragraph, too, Mr. Chairman. I believe in doing everything I can on behalf of Canadian National employees who are, as I believe, unfairly treated, or any other group. When I received that letter, naturally I was impressed by it, and naturally I was only too glad to co-operate. But for the life of me I cannot understand why, having written that letter, the chairman of the order saw fit to allow the president of Canadian National Railways to place it before the railways and shipping committee. That is something I cannot understand, and I leave it there.
In view of the instructions given in that letter, and the publicity that was given to those instructions'-it is the first time in my experience in the House of Commons I have ever known of a lobby in reverse-I no longer wish to press this matter. I would be the last one to appear to do anything in parliament that would be detrimental to those who deserve justice in the matter of pensions. I never knew before that anything detrimental could be done to employees who are in any way connected with the government of Canada by having their complaints brought before parliament.
However, having said that, I still press for the need of an immediate revision, and an increase in the basic pension without delay; for I have letters on my desk-as the minister must have-from employees of the Canadian National Railways all over this country who are between sixty-five and seventy and who, because of the fact that they received low wages in positions such as sectionmen, porters and the like, find themselves today, after years of service, in a condition bordering on destitution. Their case deserves attention without regard to whether or not other classes should be considered, as they should, and civil service employees as well. Surely those pensioners of the Canadian National Railways, receiving, as they do, less than any other employees of government- because they are employees of the government-have a proper and just claim to the consideration I have asked on their behalf on this and previous occasions.

To sum up, I ask the minister whether even now, instead of waiting until the old age pension legislation may be brought before parliament-and normally it will not be introduced before next February or March- something can be done to meet the needs of those former employees who are receiving less than $40 a month.
Second, I suggest that the rules and regulations of the pension fund be revised. They have not been revised for years. In 1947 I brought certain clauses to the attention of the minister, but as yet nothing has been done in that regard.
Some of the employees in the lower income brackets who have contributed to the fund would like to make withdrawals for certain needs that are most demanding at the moment. I would appreciate it if the minister would give consideration to allowing those who wish to withdraw their contributions to do so-thereby of course denying themselves the larger pension which they would receive were they to allow those amounts to remain in the pension fund-instead of their being held as they so often are today.
At the expense of reiteration I make this appeal. As one travels across this country one meets former employees of the Canadian National Railways who ask that parliament do something about this matter. They are in the age group of sixty-five to seventy, and, in the face of the rising cost of living, they receive a pension which is inadequate, and which is out of keeping with the services they rendered and the responsibilities they discharged over the years, and also with their standard of living and <the maintenance of that standard of living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The issue before us at the present time is the plight of retired Canadian National Railways employees whose pensions are hopelessly inadequate. I hope that the discussion of this letter, unfortunate though it is that it was tabled by Mr. Gordon, will not take us away from the seriousness of the issue affecting the men concerned. However, since my name has been mentioned in connection with this matter by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and since the letter, bearing, as it does, my name, was put on the record in the railways and shipping committee, I feel that I should say a few words about it.
In passing, I dare to hope that this whole incident in relation to Mr. Hutchinson's letter may turn out to serve the cause well. Certainly it has drawn wider attention than we have had before to the plight of Canadian National Railways pensioners, and it has also served to underline the fact that the problem

has to be dealt with jointly by the management of the Canadian National Railways and by the government. Indeed, the statement of the Minister of Transport, made to me the last time this matter was up on Friday night, April 13, makes it clear that the decision not to do anything to supplement the pensions of Canadian National Railways retired employees in the lower brackets has been made by the government. The minister said quite clearly that thus far the government had not seen fit either to instruct or to direct the Canadian National Railways to make an increase in the basic pension.
I want to come back to that in a few moments, but before I do I must say a few words about Mr. Hutchinson's letter, and about some other letters that I have received since his letter of April 12, which Mr. Gordon put upon the record in the committee. I want to say that I have no desire to take issue with Mr. Hutchinson's letter, nor do I wish to come in between Mr. Hutchinson and other members of the general chairmen's association or other labour leaders interested in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Neither do I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore I shall make my remarks as carefully guarded as I can. I must say, however, that though I recognize Mr. Hutchinson's right to write to us the kind of letter that he did, though I have no quarrel with his making to us on his own behalf the suggestions he made, I too was surprised that the president of the Canadian National Railways should produce a copy of the letter which had been sent to him and place it on the record in the railways and shipping committee. Since he did that, attention should be called to the fact that although Mr. Hutchinson preferred that we leave to his committee and to the management of the railway the working out together of changes in the basic Canadian National Railways pension fund, he was anxious that we continue to do our best to get some sort of relief for those now retired, those now having a difficult time to get along on very inadequate allowances. I refer in particular to the paragraph in which he says:
One of our prime objects is to improve the status of those who are now on pension, and we have reached tentative agreement on what can be done to improve their situation, but our plan is dependent to a great degree on the action of the government in regard to the institution of an old age pension at age seventy without a means test, and we earnestly solicit your continued support of that project.
In other words, despite some of the suggestions contained in Mr. Hutchinson's letter, 80709-157
Supply-Transport
there is in it his plea that we keep on working to try to get some improvements in the position of those now retired.
I answered Mr. Hutchinson's letter on April 17. I shall not weary the house by reading the whole of the letter, but 1 should like to put a sentence or two on record, where I said:
I note your desire that we continue our efforts on behalf of this group already retired. You can count on it that I will do so. I dare to hope that Mr. Chevrier won't use the copy of your letter which you sent to him to try to dissuade me from this effort. That would be unfortunate, but if he does, I can of course point out to him that you have earnestly solicited our support on behalf of this group. Indeed many other letters we receive stress the urgency of our doing so.
As I say, I wrote to Mr. Hutchinson rather fully and in friendly terms. I am pleased to say I have had a further letter from him, written on April 20, the tone of which strikes me as somewhat different from the tone of his letter of April 12. It is a lengthy letter, and I have no intention of reading it all or placing it all on the record. However there are two or three paragraphs I should like to read. This is from Mr. Hutchinson's letter to me on April 20:
Our most urgent wish is to do something for those who are now in retirement on inadequate pensions and with this in mind we did everything we could to get the C.N.R. to agree to a cost of living bonus for these people.
Then, later on, having indicated to me that their committee is not making much progress with respect to the plight of those already retired, he said:
Since that time we have been working on other plans to try to arrive at some relief but have not yet been able to get anything satisfactory done.
We are still working and hoping that we can do something, but the plan we have in mind is dependent on the passage of legislation authorizing a forty dollar per month old age pension at seventy without a means test.
At the present time we are tied up awaiting that legislation.
May I suggest that if it were possible to have the government reconsider their position in regard to cost of living bonus payments to civil servants it would open the way for a renewal of our claim.
I sent Mr. Hutchinson copies of Hansard of April 10 and April 13 when these matters were up for discussion. I had drawn his attention particularly to what the Minister of Transport had said as reported at page 2036 of Hansard for April 13, when he indicated to me that the case of retired C.N.R. employees stood on the same plane as that of superannuated civil servants.
And so now I have this further letter from Mr. Hutchinson stressing the plight in which retired C.N.R. pensioners still find themselves, and urging that we do something to relieve their situation. He suggests in particular that we work hard to get rid of

Supply-Transport
the means test from the old age pension, and to get something done for superannuated civil servants so that that road block will be out of the way so far as C.N.R. pensioners are concerned.
In addition to the further letter from Mr. Hutchinson, which, I submit, sets aside any suggestion made by Mr. Gordon on the basis of the previous letter to the effect that we should not press this matter on the floor of parliament, I have had communications and messages from many others interested in this matter. In many instances they have been from ordinary individuals, retired on low C.N.R. pensions. Each one who has written me has urged that we keep up the battle. In addition I have had telephone communications from a brother general chairman of Mr. Hutchinson. He, too, was not quarrelling with what Mr. Hutchinson had done. He felt it was unfortunate Mr. Gordon had placed the letter on record; but he said that, as another member of the committee of which Mr. Hutchinson is a member, his view was that we had to keep fighting this matter out in the open, on the floor of parliament, if we were to get anywhere with it.
In addition, a few days ago I received a letter from Mr. J. E. McGuire, national secretary-treasurer of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees and other transport workers. It is a lengthy letter, the whole of which I shall not put on Hansard. However, I shall read the closing paragraph, which says:
So far as we are concerned we are most grateful to you and to the other members of parliament who have taken an active interest in this very important matter, because we believe that the time is long overdue when improvements should have been effected in the pensions now being paid to persons who have been retired from railway service, and I hope that you will continue your efforts along these lines.
Yours very truly,
J. E. McGuire, National Secretary-Treasurer
So it all adds up to the fact, as I said earlier, that perhaps it is a good thing that the letter to the hon. member for Lake Centre and to me was placed on the record by Mr. Gordon, because now we have this additional plea from Mr. Hutchinson himself, in his further letter to me, and the reaction of others who are interested. They are all backing us up and asking us to try to get this government to do something with respect to C.N.R. pensioners who are now retired.
It comes to my mind at this moment that the hon. member for Lake Centre gave one figure which I believe should be corrected. I realize he was speaking from memory, but he did refer to the number who were

receiving only $25 a month. I though I heard him give that number as 1,800.


John George Diefenbaker: It was 1,700.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; the figure is 3,256.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always conservative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That many are receiving $25 a month. His other figure was correct, when he said that over 7,000 were receiving pensions of less than $40 a month.
On Friday, April 13, when this matter was under discussion, we did at least get a statement from the Minister of Transport, when he said:
I have to say that the government thus far has not been able to recommend or direct the Canadian National Railways to increase the basic pension upwards until such time as the matter of its own civil servants receives similar or adequate consideration.
And then later he said:
It appears to me that this question cannot be disposed of piecemeal, and that until such time as it is possible to find a solution for the whole problem the government does not feel disposed thus far to direct the Canadian National Railways to deal with a portion only of the problem.
Later, when I said that I took it from what he said that their case stood on the same plane as that of the superannuated civil servants and others in similar situations, the Minister of Transport replied, "That is right."
In other words, we now have it clear that the government recognizes the problem. It recognizes it in the case of retired Canadian National Railways employees, and recognizes it in the case of other groups to whom the minister referred. Well, that is a step in the right direction. If the problem is being recognized by the government, perhaps one of these times we will get them to do something about it. "But," says the Minister of Transport, "we cannot deal with it piecemeal." Let me point out that the government does deal with problems of this nature in a piecemeal fashion. I cannot discuss it at this time, but there is on the order paper a resolution to amend the Judges Act, and one of the purposes of that amendment, according to the resolution, is to improve the pension of judges and the widows of judges. That is a piecemeal approach to the problem. I have looked through the estimates and I find that the lowest pension paid to any judge or the widow of any judge at the present time is $1,111 a year. But in talking about railway pensioners we are dealing with the plight of over 3,000 persons whose pensions are only $300 a year.
I submit if it is possible for the government to deal piecemeal with the plight of the

widows of judges or of judges whose pensions of $1,111 or more a year are too low, it is possible also to deal piecemeal with this problem. I never heard the government announce before such a perfectionist policy- this idea that it cannot touch a part of a problem until it deals with the whole problem. If the government waited in that way to deal with all the problems facing the country it would never make a move of any kind. Surely the way to grapple with the problem is to start somewhere. I submit that here is a deserving group of employees of a government-owned railway, where a start could be made. I go further. I remind the government that it has set a precedent. The fact that there is that precedent is to be found in the terms of the item we are now discussing. The item we are now discussing provides for the payment of a sum of money into the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund. What for? It is done to make it possible to make the minimum pension to retired employees covered by that fund, not $20 per month as the act of 1907 still specifies, but $30. I checked today and I find that figure of $20 per month was in the original act of 1907. Some years ago this practice was started of paying into the fund moneys provided by a special vote which would make sure that no recipient of a pension out of that fund would get less than $30 per month.
In addition to the estimates that deal with this matter, I have before me the annual report for the Department of Transport for the year ending March 31, 1950, and I find on page 101 Appendix 6(f) which sets out receipts and expenditures' of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund. Among the receipts is an amount of $15,790.61 which was put in there so as to increase the retirement allowance to all retired employees receiving less than $30 per month to a figure equal to that amount.
This is one of those interesting balance sheets or accounts that starts with receipts nil, and then shows receipts totalling something over $3 million; then the expenditures are the same amount, and at the end of the year the balance to the credit of the fund is nil. In other words, the necessary amounts are put in both by the railways and by the government so that these retired employees will get a certain minimum pension. There is the precedent, although I have not been able to find out in what year this practice started, of putting in a special supplementary amount so as to bring the statutory minimum up from $20 to $30 per month.
But there was a piecemeal attack on the problem. It was an attack on a problem 80709-157J
Supply-Transport
within the realm of retired railway workers. If it was possible to bring in a vote to assist that fund in order to pay the retired employees covered by it, not a minimum of $20 but a minimum of $30 per month, surely i't is possible to bring in a similar vote to pay the employees of the Canadian National Railways generally who have a minimum of $25 per month a much higher minimum than that amount-double that figure, in any event.
Perhaps I should let the minister have something to say about this. It is perfectly all right with me if he wants to comment one way or another on the action of Mr. Gordon with regard to that letter.


Mr. Fulton:: The minister was there when it was put into the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If by any chance a covering letter was sent to the minister by Mr. Hutchinson, that should be put on the record along with the letter itself. I do not know if there was, but if so it is only fair that the covering letter to the minister and the covering letter to the president should also be on the record.
As I said in my opening remarks, the hon. member for Lake Centre and I naturally are concerned about what happened with respect to that letter. But we are not disturbed about it because it is quite clear that we have to fight these matters on the floor of parliament, or nothing is done for these groups of people. We have a request to do so from Mr. Hutchinson, from Mr. McGuire, and from scores of individuals. The important question is the plight of these men and I hope the minister will not get involved in any discussion about this letter and get away from the basic issue itself.
Let him not say that the problem cannot be attacked piecemeal. The government is attacking it piecemeal, and I have referred to two examples in particular, judges' widows and the item that is before us.
I want to say to the government that some time or another the problem of people on fixed pensions will have to be faced and dealt with more realistically than it has been thus far. We seem always to be arguing the plight of people now on pension and some members seem to have the notion, and I think the government has the notion, that it is a temporary problem, that if they can just wait a while these people will die off and the others who come along and go on pension will be on a higher rate as provided by the various pension schemes that have been put in effect in more recent years.

Supply-Transport
The plain, fact of the matter is that when people who are working today in the anticipation of higher pensions in their years of retirement reach those years of retirement their pensions will not be worth as much as they now think they are going to be. In other words, it is a recurring problem. Every generation of pensioners, whether they be Canadian National pensioners, superannuated civil servants or what have you, will face the same problem of the inadequacy of fixed pensions in view of the story across the years of prices continuing to rise. Sometimes prices rise rather violently in a short period, but over the years they rise steadily and the value of a fixed income or fixed pension is forever going down.
I submit to the government that they are not going to sidestep this problem by simply waiting until people whose plight we are now pleading die off because there will be another generation of pensioners. If not immediately when they go on pension, certainly shortly thereafter they will find that what they are getting is hopelessly inadequate. At some point along the way some sort of an adjustable basis will have to be found. In so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned I submit that as these people come under his jurisdiction he can render a real service, not only to those persons retired on C.N.R. pensions but also to all C.N.R. workers whose pension days are ahead, and to people generally, if he would find a formula or establish a precedent for dealing with the plight of these people by providing a cost of living bonus or a supplement to these people. Let it be an amount sufficient to sustain life in decency and dignity.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I
might be allowed two minutes to reply generally to what the two hon. gentlemen have said in connection with this subject matter. First of all, let me tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I have never seen him so vehement in his attitude toward this question as he is today. Perhaps that is due to the fact that he does not like the letter which was sent to him and which was placed on the record by the president of the Canadian National Railways.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman, I stated
quite clearly that I had no objection to the letter, but the minister is right when he says that I did not like the action of the president in placing it on the record, especially when the two people to whom it was addressed were not members of the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall deal with that in a
moment, but I think I am quite correct in assuming that my friend does not like the

letter he received from the chairman of the brotherhood. As I said a moment ago, I have never seen him so exercised. During the course of this discussion he has acted as if he had a chip on his shoulder.
When the motion was moved to appoint the committee on railways and shipping the hon. member said that now we would have the opportunity of discussing pensions to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways and that we would not be stopped from dealing with this matter. The committee is established, discussion takes place, the letter is put on the record; my hon. friend is angry, he does not like the letter, he does not like what has happened and he comes back here to the house and we have a repetition of everything that took place during the earlier debate. So that in essence we have a greater debate on these items as well as consideration in the committee with reference to this subject matter than we have ever had at least since I have been dealing with the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all to the good.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not say that it is not, but let my hon. friend not complain that he has not had every opportunity, or that the committee was not given an opportunity, to discuss this matter. Let me deal now with the terrible attitude of the president of Canadian National Railways who, without the consent of either the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, dares to put this letter on the record. If my recollection serves me right, the president of Canadian National Railways before putting the letter on the record stated to the chairman of the committee that he had the permission of Mr. Hutchinson to do so, and that Mr. Hutchinson had indicated to him that he would not have the slightest objection if the president saw fit to put the letter on the record. He did put it on the record, and what does it say? I should like to quote some of the things that were not quoted by the two hon. gentlemen. It says this:
At our annual meeting, held in November, 1950, we had the pleasure of having Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the C.N.R., to address a joint meeting of our association and the representatives of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees. The combined meeting represented practically all organized labour on the C.N.R. At our request-
I would ask the two hon. gentlemen to listen to this.
-Mr. Gordon spoke on the subject of pensions and told us that he realized that our present pension plan is inadequate and outdated. He promised to set up a committee of railway officers to meet with a corresponding number of representatives

of organized labour to undertake to revise the existing rules. He fulfilled his promise and set up a committee of high ranking officers. We, on our part, selected a committee of labour representatives drawn from the Canadian and international unions.
Negotiations have been carried on by the joint committee in a very co-operative atmosphere and wo have now reached the stage where certain concrete proposals are being considered, and the proposals have just been submitted to actuaries for their report and advice as to the cost to employer and employee of the various plans which are now under consideration.
I can see no objection, and I certainly cannot accept the great protests of the two hon. gentlemen in so far as the president of Canadian National Railways is concerned about his putting on the record the parts of the letter which I have read and the rest of it. Certainly there is nothing offensive in that. If there had been I am sure the representatives of the party of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the representatives of the party to which the hon. member for Lake Centre belongs, would have objected to it, because I must say they are able members of the committee. They saw no objection to placing the letter on the record and as a matter of fact it did not stop the discussion a particle. It only encouraged it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friends who protest that this matter has not been brought to the attention of the responsible authorities certainly are mistaken in that view because that is not so. I am afraid I must disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that this is a matter for the government and the C.N.R. to decide. This is first and foremost a matter for Canadian National Railways and its employees to decide, and that is exactly what Mr. Hutchinson says. That is exactly as it should be, because parliament has authorized the Canadian National Railways management te deal with problems such as this.
But if it turns out that they are unable to deal with their employees and they make representations to the government with reference to the matters to which my hon. friends have referred, then I think it is not only the duty but the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it will revise upwards or take no action with reference to this problem. Therefore I say, putting it in its proper light, that this is a matter which is now under discussion between the authorities of the Canadian National Railways and its employees. It is being given careful consideration by a joint committee of the employees and the officers. I think,
Supply-Transport
as the letter states, we should at least give the committee a chance to see what it is possible to do. If they are not successful in dealing with it, then I think it will be the responsibility of the government if Canadian National Railways should decide to recommend to the government a plan upon which both will have agreed, or an alternative plan in case both cannot agree. Beyond what I have already said on a former occasion and what I am saying now I cannot go, and it would strike me that the house has had a full opportunity to deal with the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the minister for his compliment in suggesting that I was a bit vehement, and that I was exercised about this matter. I try to maintain composure in this house, but when I feel that anything is being done that might inhibit progress with respect to these retired C.N.R. employees I do get exercised. So far as this letter is concerned, I am afraid the minister did not listen to everything that I said. In my earlier remarks I pointed out that I felt it could turn out to good effect by producing greater discussion of the whole question. It has done that, and so far as I am concerned, the matter of the letter can rest there.
I was disappointed that the minister chose to deal with the letter, but not with the real question. I went to great pains when I first started my remarks to express the hope that we would not get off the track, but the minister took the first opportunity to do just that. Let me try to bring him back. There are two aspects of the pension problem of Canadian National Railways employees. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not changes can be made in the plans now in existence for those employees still at work. It is stated by the minister that in his view it is preferable that any changes in these plans be worked out between the company and the employees. That is one aspect of the matter.
The other aspect of the matter is the case of C.N.R. men who are now retired and on pension. For the purpose of getting the matter clear, let us get some forthright answers from the minister today dealing only with that group. Let us not discuss the other matter today. In other words, let us discuss the case of the 7,000 or more employees now retired on pensions of less than $40 per month, and the
3,000	or more employees now retired on pensions of $25 a month. I should like to know whether the president of Canadian National Railways has asked the government to agree

Supply-Transport
to the paying of a supplement to the pensions paid to those in the lower brackets. Is the minister prepared to answer that question now?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. My recollection is that there have been some discussions between the president of Canadian National Railways and myself, but there were no direct representations in so far as the government was concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, Mr. Chairman, may we take it that the minister's answer to the president of Canadian National Railways, when he discussed the matter with the minister, was in effect the same answer he gave us as recorded at page 2036 of Hansard for April 13 when he said that the matter could not be dealt with piecemeal but that the case of retired C.N.R. employees would have to wait until something was done about other groups in a similar situation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am under any obligation to discuss any conversations I have had with the president of the Canadian National Railways. Neither am I under cross-examination on my estimates. I think all I am called upon to do is to give what information I have. I have said that I have had several discussions with the president of Canadian National Railways in connection with this matter. As a matter of fact, they were with the former president and the present president. Beyond that I am not prepared to go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There we are. We are getting a pretty clear picture. We have narrowed the discussion to the plight of those now retired. It is now clear that the former president of the Canadian National Railways and the present president have taken up this matter with the government. That means the railway company cannot do anything about these men by themselves; they have to deal with the government. The minister will not tell us what he said to the two presidents, but the minister tells us-and I have already quoted his statement from Hansard-that the government does not feel prepared to instruct or direct the Canadian National Railways to improve the position of these people until something is done about other people in similar circumstances.
The statement of the minister is that this matter cannot be dealt with piecemeal. In other words it is clear that it is the government that has said no to doing anything to improve the position of these people. I am absolutely certain from the correspondence that I have had, some of which I have referred to today-although only in part-

that the leaders of the unions who are dealing with the company on this matter know that whatever progress they may be making in getting the general plan overhauled, they are licked so far as the case of the retired men is concerned until we can get the government to do something. It is here in parliament where the battle has to be fought. Even Mr. Hutchinson-although I was not going to mention that letter any more-is asking us to keep up the battle for the retired men on the floor of this house. He knows that until we get the government to do something, nothing is going to be done, that Mr. Donald Gordon is helpless until he gets the green light from this government. If the best answer we can get in public is that their case is on the same plane as that of the superannuated civil servants and other groups, I can only assume that this is what has been told to Mr. Donald Gordon. But I am making my plea, and I will continue to make it session after session, until something is done. I ask that the government make a start on this terrible problem which weighs so heavily in human terms upon so many of our good citizens, this problem of people called upon to exist on pensions or retirement allowances which might have seemed like decent amounts when they were first thought of years ago but which are utterly inadequate today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some reference has been made to what took place in the sessional committee on government-owned railways. I should like to refer to one part of the discussion, when the president of the Canadian National Railways was before us. This has particular reference to that part of the field the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre just said he would like to take up specifically; that is, the position of the Canadian National Railways employee who has already retired. The printed record of the proceedings of the committee is not yet available, but my recollection is quite clear because I directed a certain set of questions to Mr. Gordon with a view to establishing whether or not these employees who have already retired are in the position that any adjustment of the Canadian National Railways pension plan is dependent on the working out and eventual implementation of an over-all contributory old age pension at age 70 without a means test. The answer of the president of the Canadian National Railways, in so far as he felt himself able to answer that question at that time, was that this was the case, that no definite decision or program regarding the retired employees receiving less than $40 a month could be worked out by the Canadian National, the employees association and the

pensioners association, until there was a general determination of this matter of a national contributory old age pension without a means test.
It did not seem very useful to follow up that matter with close questioning in the committee, because the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not a member or a witness before the committee; obviously Mr. Gordon could not state government policy, and I did not feel it altogether proper at that moment to ask the Minister of Transport to declare government policy in that regard, when he was attending as a member of that sessional committee. However, I do feel it proper to refer to that passage between myself and Mr. Gordon on this occasion, and to ask the minister whether he or any of his colleagues in the cabinet are now in a position to elaborate on that statement. Is he in a position to elaborate on the general question, to let us know how much longer these retired employees receiving less than $40 a month may have to wait before their case is settled, and also let us know whether the whole new pension scheme which the president of the C.N.R. told us the company was trying to work out with its employees will depend on a satisfactory solution of that one particular branch? Is that what is meant when the government now says they cannot deal with this matter piecemeal; do they mean that the whole thing has to wait until the national contributory old age pension plan is worked out and implemented, or do they not? If they do, then how long will it be before the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways will have an adjustment in their pension?


Lionel Chevrier: In reply to the first part of my hon. friend's statement let me say simply that the president of the Canadian National Railways declared that the committee referred to in the letter is dealing with this problem. I have no intention of saying anything as far as that is concerned until I have had some report at least from the president of the Canadian National. As far as the other part of my hon. friend's statement or question is concerned, that is as to the attitude of the government, I put on record the other evening what that was, and I have no intention of adding to or taking away from that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, we are to have no further information; is that it?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend any information other than that he already has.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I have not been in the house for the last hour or so, and consequently I do not know what has been said already on
Supply-Transport
this subject. I have no doubt, however, that the case for the superannuated railway employees has been put forward with considerable force and ability. I have had communications from pensioned C.N.R. employees in every part of this dominion; in Nova Scotia, in central Canada, that is Toronto and Montreal, in the western provinces, and particularly in my own province of British Columbia. There is not the slightest doubt-and I think there is not a member of the house who will not agree- that many of the superannuated employees of the Canadian National Railways are living under deplorable conditions. That is a fact which I am sure no one in this house would challenge. The question that confronts us here as members of parliament is what we are going to do to help those people who are now living in semi-starvation because of conditions over which they have no control. If this government cannot affect the cost of living, it must be apparent to all that the superannuated employees of the Canadian National Railways, retired civil servants, or any other pensioners cannot prevent their pension, small as it was in the beginning, from dwindling to about half what it was ten years ago. Now, that is the question that is confronting us. The question I ask this government is, are we going to do anything about it? Remember we have dealt with pensions in this house, pensions which in comparison to those we are now discussing provide a luxurious standard of living to those who were getting them. We have increased them. There is now a bill on the order paper to increase them again. Will any member of the government say that the employees of Canada's own railway, who have given faithful service not only to the railway but to Canada, should, in their old age, be allowed to starve?
That is the situation now confronting us. What are we going to do about it? I think that every member in this house should state his own position in this matter, because it has reached a stage where it is a scandal, where it is a reproach to us as a nation. I have not any illusion that I have been chosen to be communicated with by those organizations, or that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Lake Centre have been selected to receive those letters. I am sure I would be surprised if there is a private member in this house representing an urban centre who has not had communications of this kind. I would be interested in knowing how the supporters of the government have replied to those communications.

Supply-Transport
I have one letter here. I am very careful about replying to letters of this kind. I do not put myself out on a limb as to what I am going to do or what I am going to try to get. I do try to show them the picture as it is. I have a letter which happens to be in my file, which is a reply to a mimeographed letter signed by James Downs, 62 Bristol avenue, Toronto, representing the Canadian National Railways Veterans Association in that city. It is dated April 12, 1951, and I suppose that every member from the city of Toronto received one as well as every member representing an urban constituency. I replied to the letter as follows:
Dear Mr. Downs:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 12, in which you give me an outline of the Canadian National Railways employees' retirement pensions.
I have had similar communications from organizations in several parts of Canada and more particularly of my own city of Vancouver. The situation of the Canadian National railway pensioners has already been discussed in the house, and it will be discussed in the special parliamentary committee on government-owned railways and other transportation systems. I do not know, of course, what action will be taken in the committee, but I am sure that the question will again be discussed during the session.
I can assure you of my full support for increased pensions.
So far as I have any support to give, I am giving that support now. But I can do nothing. Other private members of this house can do nothing until such time as the government will act in this matter. I implore the government to consider the plight of these men who, in their old age when they should have some of the comforts that we boast are the heritage of Canadians, when we assert that we have the highest standard of living in the world, are left with these meagre pensions. It is true some people in this country have a high standard of living, but those people do not include the majority of tne pensioners of the Canadian National Railways. I would ask the Minister of Transport, therefore, to again take up this matter with his colleagues, and before the session ends to come before this house with some proposal to alleviate the conditions under which these people have to live.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word in support of the previous speaker. I am not going to take much time because the member for Vancouver East has said most of the things I intended to say. Many of these pensioners live in my constituency in St. James and West Kildonan. I know these men because thirty years ago I was working alongside these fellows in the C.N.R. shops. I know their circumstances, and I know their problems. I know how difficult it is for them
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
to make ends meet. We have only to look at the great rise in prices to know that the $25 which some of them are getting is far from being ample.
I recall that this plan came into operation in the depression years when $25 looked like a lot of money. Of course, barley was only fifteen cents a bushel and oats about ten cents, so conditions were quite different. Today $25 is really nothing. All it does is to keep that individual from receiving the old age pension. I do not know to whom I should appeal, but I am going to appeal to the government first, to the Canadian National Railways if need be, and I am going to ask the minister responsible to do his best for these Canadian National pensioners today. They are in great difficulty. Some people in the Canadian National Railways have retired well off, but the majority did not and are really in need of some assistance.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this question, since I was a member of the railway committee. I had no knowledge of that letter which was tabled by Mr. Gordon until 1 heard it read in the *committee. I am not going to go into all the arguments I have heard in this house for ten years concerning the necessity for a pension for the classifications about which we are speaking. I believe that is conceded.
I should like to stress that there are two questions involved in this discussion. The first one is that, at the present time, a committee representing the employees of Canadian National have been meeting with the management over the last couple of months for the purpose of revising the whole pension scheme for the future. In my opinion that is the proper way to do it. It is the first time in the history of the system that management has formed a committee of the employees themselves. Their job is to try to find an actuarial basis upon which they can improve the whole pensions scheme for the future. I am quite prepared to leave it with the people affected, because I think they are in a position to do a better job in working out a suitable scheme than we are here, or people anywhere else in the country.
The second point that I should like to make is this: The other question is the question of the employees of the Canadian National Railways who have retired on pension. Mr. Gordon made it quite clear to the committee that that particular question was not being considered by the committee now set up. No matter what happened to the new scheme, the pensioners now out, the superannuated ones, would not come within the scope of anything that may be done by way of improvement. He did

suggest that the only hope he could see for the immediate future was to have the means test taken out of the old age pension. By doing that many of those pensioners who now are limited in their earnings, because of the means test, would get relief. The only hope, and I think the thing that we have to emphasize in immediate relief for the superannuated pensioner, is to get something done in regard to amending the Old Age Pensions Act as soon as it can be done, because management made it quite clear to that committee that nothing would be done in so far as the superannuated pensioners were concerned.
I just wanted to make that clear. Let us not confuse the whole thing. I would leave the matter that is now in the hands of management and the committee to them, because that is the proper place for it; but I would urge the minister, if he has any influence with the rest of the cabinet, to try, before this session prorogues, to do something about the means test in the Old Age Pensions Act, because to the committee it was clearly indicated that that was the only immediate hope for the classification of pensioners who did not come within the scope of the new scheme, if and when management and employees agree to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to restate or recapitulate anything I said before. It is clear from what the minister has said today that so far as the pensioner is concerned, there is little hope for his receiving any increase over the $25 basic pension, nor indeed for the 7,000 odd receiving any increase in their pensions of $40 and under. As a matter of fact, no matter what this committee of management and labour may do, nothing would be done for the man who is out today. I am not speaking of the man who is 70 years of age; I am speaking of the ones between 65 and 70, to whom the removal of the means test will mean no improvement.
I have in my hand a copy of the record of what took place in the railway committee. It is very interesting to read what the attitude of the president of the Canadian National Railways is in relation to those who are over 65 and who today are on pension. He said this.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend is going to read the evidence of the committee into the record may I say that I understand there is a rule of the house which prohibits it.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the report of the committee has been tabled there is no objection. It belongs to the house and there is no 80709-158
Supply-Transport
objection to quoting it. See Beauchesne, third edition, page 204, citations 568 and 569.


John George Diefenbaker: The report has already been brought in. I am reading from page EE-7 of the typewritten script:


Mr.   Gordon@: We have been considering a plan
whereby we can bridge the gap between 65 and 70, until we get into the old age pension bracket.
That was referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I continue:
In respect of employees to be retired that is fairly easy because we can talk to them while they are our employees and if the government agrees with our plans we would not expect much difficulty there.
After all, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. The responsibility is the responsibility of the government. Mr. Gordon goes on:
But, before we can make that applicable to employees who have retired they would have to be searched out and give up the existing contract about which they would be suspicious. They would not believe the C.N.R. was going to give them something better. We would find it difficult to break that down, and remember also these men are old men and they are not too competent to judge what is in their own interests, and so on and so forth. So, I cannot give you any assurance whatever that the plan as finally agreed upon will be made applicable to retired employees.
If retired employees are to get an increase over what they are receiving today, however suspicious they might be, and however old they might be, I am sure there would be no aversion on their part to receiving an increase over what they are receiving today. I do not think that any good will come out of repetition, but when I think of the employees from 65 to 70-no matter what the old age pension law may be, no matter whether the pension will be awarded without the means test at 70-who are receiving $25 a month, and probably up to $40 a month, apparently they will receive little or no consideration, because the minister will not go any farther than he went on Friday the 13th, and that left no hope so far as the ex-employees are concerned. Reiteration and repetition do nothing. Finally, I say this: no amount of excuse, no committees that can be set up, no committee that has been set up in any way discharges the government from their responsibility.
When the minister was asked a very simple question as to what conversation he had with Mr. Gordon, the president, and whether Mr. Gordon had suggested to him that something be done for those people, the answer was that he would not be cross-examined. When one receives that answer-


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what my hon. friend would have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course I am not the
minister.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Fortunately.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not the minister who is responsible to give the fullest information. Judging by his answer, there is no question at all in my mind about these employees who are receiving a pension of from $25 to $40 a month and who are between 65 and 70 years of age, their position is hopeless, as it has been hopeless for four years, and that condition is to be continued. I feel very deeply on this, for I know and all of us know of ex-employees who gave the best years of their lives for a pension which was attractive, as the hon. member for Selkirk says, in 1935, but which today leaves the recipients of that pension destitute.
The wages that these people received over the years did not enable them to provide for themselves. I leave the matter there. I am not going to argue further. So far as the employee between 65 and 70 is concerned, the responsibility rests on the government of the country. No one else can accept that responsibility. Whatever may be done by the committee that has been set up to which Mr. Hutchinson referred, it in no way, as Mr. Gordon said, can determine the rights of those who are today on pension.


Howard Charles Green: The ground has been
thoroughly covered by my deskmate, the hon. member for Lake Centre, as well as by other members who have spoken this afternoon. I should like to associate myself with their remarks. I would point out to the minister in addition, however, that four or five months ago the Canadian Pacific Railway provided an increased pension for its small pensioners.
I have here a press dispatch of December 22, which sets out that fact. The paragraph dealing with employees who had already retired reads as follows:
The new rules will increase the minimum pension for employees already retired from $30 to $35 monthly in addition to which a supplemental allowance of $5 per month for those under age seventy will be continued.
There may be other factors entering into the action taken by the C.P.R.; but I do wish the minister would explain whether or not that is the case. It seems to me where one railway has provided an increase in the minimum pension, similar action should be taken by the other. I do not understand why the Canadian National should refuse to do what the Canadian Pacific has already done.


Lionel Chevrier: I think if my hon. friend reads the evidence given by the president of the Canadian National Railways he will find that the president was asked that question and proceeded to give an explanation

of the difference between the two company plans. One is a compulsory plan while the other is not. I am speaking from memory, but I believe he went on to say that the average pension under the Canadian National plan was as high as if not higher than that under the Canadian Pacific plan.


John George Diefenbaker: The average pension.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, higher than the Canadian Pacific, even with the increase.


Howard Charles Green: But what about the minimum pensions?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will read the evidence he will find what the president of the Canadian National said on that occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says "again". The
only answer I can make is that the minister did point out that I was exercised about the matter, as indeed I am. In view of what has been said, may I point out in fairness to the Canadian Pacific that the supplement they pay to pensioners in the lower brackets goes not only to those on low pensions, which they earned under the compulsory contributory scheme, but it also goes to those who were in the employ of the company prior to 1937, and therefore were not in any compulsory scheme. So I think the difference between the two systems which Mr. Gordon sought to indicate is not pertinent.
My purpose in rising again was to appeal to the minister to take an objective view of the position in which some time ago he sought to leave this matter. I refer to the time the hon. member for Kamloops was putting a supplementary question to him, and the minister said that the whole matter was being discussed between the employees, through their committee, and the company, and that until such time as those negotiations were concluded one way or another he did not wish to say anything further or to take action in the matter.
That seemed a plausible position, and he was supported in it by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. May I point out to him -and I would ask him to look at this objectively-that that does not include any hope whatsoever for those now retired. The attitude of the president of the railways toward those now retired is indicated by the quotation read into the record by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hopelessness and1 helplessness which members of the committee on

the employees' side feel about anything being done through their negotiations on behalf of those now retired is revealed by the quotation I placed on record, from my second letter from Mr. Hutchinson. So those men who are now retired, sixty-five to sixty-nine, as well as those seventy and over, are out in the cold. Nothing is going to be done for them by the Canadian National Railways, unless they get a green light from the government. Nothing is going to be achieved for them by negotiations between the committee representing the men and the committee representing management.
The government has laid down a policy with respect to superannuated civil servants. We are still referred back to the statement made in January, 1948, by the Minister of Finance. That policy, which I regard as wrong, stands in the way. The Minister of Transport referred to it the other night. I ask him to give this whole matter further consideration-and when I use the expression "whole matter" I am narrowing it down, so far as our discussion today is concerned, to the case of those who are now retired.
To ask us to wait until the other negotiations are concluded is of no avail; because when those negotiations are concluded they will include nothing for these people, and we will then get the same kind of statement the Minister of Finance makes to retired civil servants-the statement that what they are receiving is what is theirs by virtue of a contractual arrangement. That is as far as he will go.
The problem is a serious one, and I earnestly hope the minister will give it further consideration. Before taking my seat I should say, despite anything we may have said earlier in debate, and despite any attitude the minister may have attributed to me, that I am most grateful to Mr. Donald Gordon, for having placed that letter on the record, and for having created an atmosphere in which it has been possible really to bring this whole matter out in the open.
Look at the time. Did the committee ever think this matter would be discussed at such length today?-not on your life! I certainly did not. But because of the attention that has been drawn to it, and because of the various aspects of the issue we have been able to bring out into the open, the case is now clearly before the minister. I hope, and I am encouraged by the smile I now see on his face, that he will adopt a different attitude toward it, and give full consideration now to the case of those who are at present 80709-1584
Supply-Transport
retired. Do not ask them to wait until the negotiations on the other are completed, because that will not provide any help for those who are now retired.
Before taking my seat may I take the opportunity to ask one or two questions concerning the item before the committee. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you will be happy to permit questions relating directly to the item. We are now considering item 503, which is in these words:
Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provision of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward- Island Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act.
The amount asked is $14,250. As I indicated earlier, I checked back and I found the act was passed in 1907, and that it laid out a formula for pensions for people working for the railways mentioned. However there was a floor in the act, for it said that in no case could a pension be less than $20 a month. I would ask the minister in what year the practice was begun of putting in the estimates an item to supplement the $20 up to the figure of $30 now provided.
I would ask an explanation, further, as to why the amount continues to decline. Before I came to the chamber this afternoon, I checked back for a period of six or seven years, and I found that in each succeeding year the amount required for this purpose has been a little less.


Lionel Chevrier: The increase has been in effect and has been voted in the estimates of the department since 1921. There are now 209 of these former employees affected by the vote. The reduction in the number of pensioners is due to natural causes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, in due course this plan may be liquidated completely?


Lionel Chevrier: Quite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the increase was made in 1921 was it to $30?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, from $20 to $30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the increase was made in 1921 was it made to cover employees then retired?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the government did in 1921 in connection with this group of people was in principle exactly what we are asking to be done now for retired Canadian National employees. Here was a group of people in 1921 who by statute were entitled to a

Supply-Transport
minimum pension of $20 per month. Apparently the government of that day realized that $20 was not enough and despite the statute-incidentally, Mr. Watson Sellar calls attention to this in his memorandum; he says the statute should be changed-the government put an item in the estimates to increase the minimum of $20 to a figure of $30. What we are asking now is that the government do the same sort of thing for Canadian National employees who are already retired, more than 3,000 of whom are receiving only $25 a month and more than 7,000 of whom are receiving less than $40 a month. I urge action now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-Telecommunications division- Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
504.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,707,545.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister a question which applies to all the items under the telecommunications division, and to a degree to other items as well. Take this item 504, the administration item; the vote for this year is $4,707,545, and for last year it is shown as being $4,489,730, or an increase of $217,815. When we turn to the details at page 480 we find that in the last fiscal year the vote was not spent by about $488,000. The result is that for the present year the estimate is up practically $700,000 over the amount actually spent last year. That is true of practically every item on this page.
In the case of vote 505 there is a decrease from last year of $922,900, but when we turn to the details on page 482 we find that last year the difference between what was voted and what was spent amounted to $820,000. In some of these cases where the estimate shows a decrease in amount, actually there is an increase over the amount which was actually spent during the last fiscal year.
It would seem to me that it would be more likely to lead to economy if these estimates were put in at a lower figure. The way it is done now gives one the impression that the figure is put in at a higher amount than it is expected will be spent, which I presume is done to provide what might be called a reserve. Surely that is an invitation to the departmental officials to spend up to the amount estimated, or in any event not to be so economical.
Why is it not possible to cut down these estimates closer to the amounts that are to be spent? For the first time the estimates this year show in the particulars the actual expenditures under each vote for the last two

fiscal years. I presume that that is why this picture has never stood out so clearly before. Would it not be possible to cut down the estimates this year to an amount more nearly in line with what will actually be spent? Surely there is not going to be such a great increase over the amount actually spent last year as to bring the total up to what is being voted this year?


Lionel Chevrier: As the hon. gentleman knows, these are but estimates. The departmental officials do the best they can in preparing them. I can assure the hon. member that the estimates are revised by the time they get to the deputy minister, and then they are revised downward again, particularly this year, by the treasury officials. It does happen as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, that money voted last fiscal year has not been spent, but that may toe due to the fact that the department has not been able to obtain the materials and supplies required, or the staff that they had in mind to get.
There are some examples that come to mind, not particularly in connection with these two items. There have been cases where an item has been put in the estimates two or three times because it has not been possible to enter into agreements with municipalities or with those who are negotiating for facilities in the department. The best answer I can give is that very often it is impossible to get within the fiscal year the materials and equipment that we expected to get, and therefore the money is not spent.


Howard Charles Green: This particular item showed a vote in the last fiscal year of nearly $500,000 over the amount actually spent. This covers administration, operation and maintenance; it is not an item for construction or the acquisition of buildings. Surely there is something wrong when in an administration item there is a difference of half a million dollars between the amount voted and the amount spent, out of a total vote of about $4,500,000.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a pretty large vote. It must be remembered that these telecommunications services are scattered all over the country, in the Northwest Territories, in Newfoundland and in areas-it is not easy to reach.


Howard Charles Green: I am questioning what looks like a padding of estimates. I do not say that the Department of Transport is any worse than some of the other departments, and this may be the general government practice. It does seem to me that the estimate could be a great deal closer to the amount spent than is the case with (hese particular items.


Clarence Gillis: I want to again provoke the minister's thought in connection with a matter of some considerable importance. Two years ago there was considerable agitation from the Halifax area over the fact that there was not an adequate airport in that locality. The minister will remember that the airport at Eastern Passage had deteriorated to the extent that North Star aircraft could not land except in an emergency. During that period the transport department undertook the matter of making a survey of the Halifax area in an endeavour to find a suitable site. I received some information in the railway committee on this matter. One angle that was bothering people in that area was that, when forced landings took place, in many cases the passengers wanted to disembark and go through customs at that point, but they were not permitted to do so. They had to go through to Montreal. According to information we received in the railway committee, that has been corrected. There is an understanding now with the immigration department that people who find themselves in that position can go through customs there. The point on which I should like the minister to bring us up to date is whether the survey for the new site has been completed. If so, can he tell us where it is and what the possibilities are in the near future of starting an airport in that area?
It is something that is very badly needed, particularly today with the uncertain international situation and in view of the importance of that particular city and port in the event of difficulties on this continent. Second, if the site is not ready and cannot be got ready within a reasonable time, what are the possibilities of improving the airport at Eastern Passage? That is a job that could be done quickly. I do not want to enter into a long discussion of this matter. I know the minister wants to get ahead as fast as he can, and I know the Minister of Public Works wants to close at six o'clock tonight. Therefore I am making my statement short. Will the minister bring me up to date on the two matters I have mentioned? The first is what is the condition of the survey made to determine the new site for an airport, and if it is not possible to build a new airport within the foreseeable future, what can be done about improving the facilities at Eastern Passage airport?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might deal with the matter now, although it should come under the item for airports and airways on the next page. With reference to Dartmouth, let me tell the hon. member that is an airport which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. When that depart-
Supply-Transport
ment makes representations to us so far as facilities are concerned we build them. I am not aware that they have made any request -they may have-for additional facilities either by way of longer runways or stronger runways to take the larger aircraft. If they do we give it consideration immediately and put it into effect. I have nothing in these estimates to provide for additional facilities at Dartmouth.
With reference to the civilian airport at Halifax, if that is what the hon. member calls it, there is in the department a committee that makes a survey of all available airport and airway facilities in Canada in case of need or in case of emergency. That committee is a standing committee. I have not received a report from it with reference to Halifax, or any other airport for that matter, within recent days.


Clarence Gillis: The reason I ask the question now is that in the railway committee- perhaps the minister was not there?


Lionel Chevrier: No, but I am aware of what was said.


Clarence Gillis: We were definitely told that a survey had been completed that they felt would be suitable to all concerned. I was wondering whether the minister could bring us up to date. The statement we received in the committee is not correct?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say that. I would simply say that this standing committee, which is composed of other than Department of Transport officials, has not brought to my attention a report recommending or dealing with this particular aspect. When I saw by the press what the position was I gave that information, and I can only repeat it here.


Clarence Gillis: I want to get it ora the record.
I would consider that the information we obtained in the committee, while coming from a fairly authoritative source, would not be official. I am trying to get the minister to make it official. In effect he has said that the interdepartmental committee has made a survey. He does not know whether or not it is completed, and he does not know if a 'Site has been selected that is suitable to all concerned. It has not been brought to your attention?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right. I do not want to be misunderstood. The survey they have made is a survey of all airports and not of this particular one. I would not want to be misunderstood.


Clarence Gillis: They surveyed that particular one also. Anyway the minister will bring

Supply-Transport
us up to date some time before the house closes. I will see to that by way of a question.


Mr. Balcom:: Has Trans-Canada Air Lines asked for that airport at Halifax?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware if they have.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I should like to suggest that the statements made in the railway committee, to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred, should not have been made at that time because the information was not available. In order to get it on the record, I should like to say that the Halifax board of trade has been working on this matter for some time, and we have been working quietly towards this end.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister a few general questions with respect to the matter of gearing Canada's civil aviation industry and also airports-


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the hon. member if he would not ask that now. I would appreciate it if he would agree not to do so. I should like to have the discussion relevant to the items before us.


John George Diefenbaker: That practice has not been followed, but I am perfectly willing to co-operate.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the
committee how much money has been advanced by the government to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation? As he knows, that corporation was set up a year or two ago, and it was to take over certain assets from two established companies, Cable and Wireless Limited and the Canadian Marconi Company. Can he tell the committee how much has been advanced? The limit was $4,500,000?


Lionel Chevrier: About $500,000 has been advanced to the crown company for the purpose of purchasing some assets of the Canadian Marconi Company.


Howard Charles Green: How much will be required this year? Is there anything in these votes for that amount?


Lionel Chevrier: No, because the crown
company takes it from its own funds. Authority to advance moneys has been granted by parliament under the special act, and amounts are advanced by the Department of Finance to the crown company from time to time as required. Thus far about half a million dollars has been advanced because they have, I am informed, come to a settlement in so far as a portion of the Marconi facilities are concerned. Negotiations with Cable and Wireless Limited are in progress.


Howard Charles Green: About how much more will be required this year?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, over a million dollars,
I would think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
505.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,499,200.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister indicate where it is intended to acquire land and what buildings are to be built during the coming year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are quite a
number of them. This vote, as is indicated, is for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land and also for the acquisition and building of equipment. I shall refer to the larger items. For instance, for improvement of communication facilities at Gander there is an item of $69,000; construction of an I.L.S. runway at Gander, $40,000; at Sydney, construction of an I.L.S. installation, $40,000; at Goose, improvements to communication facilities, $47,000; at Mecatina, reconstruction of buildings and construction of a navigation beacon, $100,000; Churchill, construction of two apartments, $63,000; Vancouver, construction of a number of projects under $5,000, total $20,000; Vancouver, extension of transmitter building, $20,000. Those are the large items; there are other smaller ones.


John George Diefenbaker: Are there any in
Saskatchewan?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, at Regina; construction of building for transmitter, $5,000.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any provision for
the lengthening of the runways at the Regina airport?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but that comes under
the construction of airports, on the other page.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and Regulations-
506.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $898,836.
Mr. Drew:: As a matter of information
what are the various international conferences referred to here?


Lionel Chevrier: There is the international telecommunication union at Geneva, the international radio consultative and administrative conference at Geneva, and the interAmerican radio office at Havana. Canada's share in the cost of these is $35,000 for the

telecommunication union, $16,000 for the radio consultative conference, and $6,000 for the office at Havana.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
508. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,819,983.
Major James William Coldwell: What about radar? What supervision does the department exercise over radar equipment on ships; and are ships equipped with radar compelled to carry licensed operators, competent to repair radar sets if they go out of operation? I am not asking this without some grounds. I have been on several ships that had radar equipment, and I have been told that some vessels equipped with radar do not have competent operators; that if the captain is relying on radar for navigation purposes, as they do nowadays when they have that equipment on the ships, if the apparatus should go out of commission there is no one on the ship competent to repair it. That is dangerous, because of the reliance of ships nowadays on radar. I was wondering if anything is done by the department to register the ships equipped with radar, or if there is any compulsion on ships of certain types to instal radar; and if radar is installed, is there a licensed operator who can make the necessary repairs if the equipment breaks down, so the equipment may be of some use?


Lionel Chevrier: Radar is not carried on all ships, and it is not compulsory. Therefore there is no obligation to have personnel able to operate it. When there is radar on one of our ships we have one or more officers who are competent to operate the equipment. As far as repairs are concerned if it breaks down, there is no provision for that.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister not think that if a man is licensed to operate a radar set some assurance should be given that he can make minor repairs? I do not suggest he should be able to do major repairs on such a set, but he should be competent to make such repairs as are likely to be needed; and should that not be part of his qualifications?


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps the point is well taken, but until we make it compulsory on our ships to have that equipment I think it would be difficult to make it compulsory to have men able to make repairs. I think perhaps we should have somebody capable of making repairs in case of a breakdown. Very often we find that a man proficient in the repair of other kinds of equipment knows little or nothing about radar, unless he has taken a special course. While the officer who operates it has taken
Supply-Transport
a course in its operation, I must say he need not have ability to make repairs as well. That is a point to which I think consideration should be given.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no doubt that sooner or later it will be compulsory to carry radar on certain types of ships, and I raise this point so that when that time comes it will be remembered by the officials of the department even if the minister should not be then* himself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
512.	Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport Department only), $719,668.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give the number of radio receiving licences that have been issued; and would he also say whether television would come under this item?


Lionel Chevrier: This item does not cover television. The number of licences issued for 1949-50 was 2,177,646.


John George Diefenbaker: How many for the
previous year?


Lionel Chevrier: 2,057,943.


John George Diefenbaker: What is done in order to assure that licences are secured? What is your set-up?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not quite follow the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the set-up in order to see that licences are taken out? What enforcement machinery have you?


Lionel Chevrier: In the first place, as my hon. friend must have noticed, an announcement is broadcast over the radio from time to time after the 10 o'clock news, about the time the licence expires. That announcement is not made every night, but is made on a number of evenings. It is stated that licences for the operation of radios expire on a certain date, and that radio owners would be well advised to obtain new licences for the ensuing year. Then a card goes out under the signature of the deputy minister to every person known to own a radio receiving set. There are also the vendors who make a door to door canvass. Those are the three matters that come to mind at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the total
amount collected in radio licence fees last year, and what was the cost of collection?


Lionel Chevrier: The total amount collected for 1949-50 was $5,143,054. The commission allowed on sales was $331,653.


John George Diefenbaker: How many prosecutions took place for failure to take out licences, broken down by provinces?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The prosecutions for the fiscal year 1950-51 numbered 5,724. Broken down by provinces they were as follows:
British Columbia	 215
Alberta	 349
Saskatchewan	 297
Manitoba	 357
Ontario	 3,162
Quebec	 591
Nova Scotia	 531
New Brunswick	 159
Newfoundland	 63
Prince Edward Island	 0
I must say that those are not final because the reports are not in, but so far as can be ascertained that will be the total for the year 1950-51.


John George Diefenbaker: What allowance do you give to those who are trying to collect the radio licences? What are the fees paid?


Lionel Chevrier: The fee is $2.50, and the commission to the vendor to whom I referred a moment ago going from house to house is twenty-five cents; five cents is paid to a staff post office; fifteen cents to an accounting post office; fifteen cents to radio dealers and fifteen cents to banks. I believe in certain areas the mounted police also sell licences and they get twenty-five cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
513.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,440,729.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to draw the minister's attention to a matter about which I wrote to him last year. It concerns the placing of radio communication sets on islands in Newfoundland where it would be too expensive to have communication by telegraph or telephone. I drew his special attention to the case of Colinet island, where there are about ninety families living about three miles from the mainland. The water in between becomes very rough, and in the wintertime there is no communication between the island and the mainland. It would only cost between $600 and $700 to instal a radio transmitter. Everyone has a radio receiving set. I believe the minister referred me to the director of telephone services in Toronto who turned down the idea.
I know that some years ago the Newfoundland government substituted radio transmitters for telephone service in some sections of Newfoundland along the northwest coast and along the east coast. It was found to be much more economical than attempting to maintain long telephone or telegraph lines. I do not know how many such places there are that would require the establishment of

radio communication service, but it seems to me it would be of great benefit to the people and could be operated at very little expense. Has the minister had any applications from any other section of the country, or does he know whether there are other islands such as the one to which I referred, where radio transmitters are used for communication with the mainland?


Lionel Chevrier: We have before us for approval an application to establish service to about fifteen communities by means of radio-telephone connections to land lines or wireless telegraph stations. These are applications to the Canadian National Railways who have taken over the telecommunication system of Newfoundland. These applications are being considered at the moment, and I understand will be approved


William Joseph Browne: Could you name the places?


Lionel Chevrier: They are Penguin Arm, Sops island, North Bay, La Poile, Colinet island-should I stop there?


William Joseph Browne: No, I should like to hear the rest of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Isle Valen, Pinchard's
Island, Richard's Harbour, Fox Island, Coward's Island, Burnt Islands, Croque, Little Harbour Deep, Williamsport, Hooping Harbour, Canada Harbour.


William Joseph Browne: Consideration is being given to that at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and I understand
approval will be forthcoming in the near future.


William Joseph Browne: I am very glad to hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the detail under this item
on page 488 there is the following:
Operation and; maintenance of communication lines by commercial companies, $110,000.
Could the minister give us some further information about that? It is the very last item on page 488.


Lionel Chevrier: This amount is to cover
charges levied by commercial telephone and telegraph companies in respect of the attachment, maintenance and attendance of departmentally owned telecommunication facilities. The largest single payment of this nature is involved between Prince George and Prince Rupert, B.C., where approximately five thousand miles of telegraph and telephone circuits, four repeater stations and associated equipment are operated and attended on a contractual basis for the department by Canadian National Telegraphs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the position, then, that that is your line but the Canadian National Telegraphs maintain it for you?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are there any such lines of
a substantial nature?


Lionel Chevrier: There is in a further vote,
and I shall draw them to your attention later on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
514.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $450,100.
Major James William Coldwell: Before we pass item 514,
there is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. I had intended to speak on it at some length, but I shall merely put the facts on the record which we have obtained by asking for various sessional papers and by inquiries which will appear in Hansard. I think it is a very strange matter and indicates a very strange procedure. It has to do with the building of a telegraph line in northern Saskatchewan by one L. M. Marion. I find that on September 29, 1948, Mr. Marion wrote the Department of Transport here, and this will be found in sessional paper 119-D, 1950, that he was prepared to start at a moment's notice, subject to the following terms, a telegraph line from Bull's House to Buffalo River. He said that the distance was thirty-five miles, and he also said- I thought this was rather strange-"I would recommend that Mr. Hood, the operator at Beauval, continue, as in the past, to inspect all work for the department."
Then, on April 3, 1949, parliament voted in interim supply a portion of the $14,000 estimated as required for the project. That is reported in Hansard of May 15, 1950. On May 9, 1949, Mr. Marion submitted bids for parts of the project through the Department of Transport at Edmonton. On July 8, 1949, notices inviting tenders for various parts of the project were displayed in several post offices for the first time, the line to be thirty-five miles long. On July 18, 1949, tenders on various parts of the project were received from L. M. Marion, E. E. Benoit, and A. Marion. On July 26, 1949, Mr. A. Marion and Mr. E. E. Benoit assigned their tenders to L. M. Marion.
Then, on August 2, 1949, a new tender came in from Mr. F. Laliberte at a lower rate than was offered by Mr. Marion. On August 9, 1949, Mr. Marion wired Ottawa that the line was completed and to please rush payment and so on. That will be found in sessional paper 119-D, page 10.
Then, there is a post office matter and I am not going to refer to that, but on Sep-
Supply-Transport
tember 6 the Department of Transport quite properly wrote Mr. Marion in these terms, in part:
... as a result of your action in proceeding without our authorization, a very embarrassing situation has developed particularly as your combined offer for the job complete is not the lowest received.
Then on September 16, 1949, Mr. Marion wrote to Ottawa and explained in part-this is a gem:
I did not anticipate that anybody that knew the country and conditions would be interested unless it were some irresponsible party who put in a bid simply to cause trouble.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is Marion?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Marion is a Liberal member of the legislature, but I was not going to raise that. On October 6, 1949, the Department of Transport informed Mr. Marion that his tender was still not the lowest and-I am quoting:
We are therefore not in a position to proceed until this discrepancy is adjusted.
A week later, on October 14, Mr. Marion submitted a tender at $270 a mile, which was equal to the lowest tender received for 35 miles. The total was $9,924. The line was measured by the government officially and found to be 28 miles long. On October 19, 1949, the line was finally completed. On November 15 a rate of $270 a mile was approved on recommendation of the technical officers of the Department of Transport. Then Mr. Ahenakew wrote to the Department of Transport a warning about the length of the line and underlining his knowledge of the situation by saying that he had typed the letters at Mr. Marion's dictation. He further stated of Mr. Marion:
He went ahead and built the line without authorization relying on political backing to see him through.
Here is the point that I am coming to. Parliament passed the remaining portion of the $14,000 estimate for this project on December 3, 1949, without being informed, when the matter was before the house, of any of the foregoing matters, and in spite of the fact that the line had been built for less than $10,000. The last word I have-I am going to ask the minister to comment on it in a minute -is that on May 15, 1950, the Minister of Transport informed the house that the payment was now being effected to Mr. Marion. I should like to know what the final payment to Mr. Marion was on this rather peculiar contract or rather peculiar undertaking on Mr. Marion's part. I have just given a bare outline. Of course I could comment here and there as I went along, but I did not propose to do that.


Lionel Chevrier: I of course cannot recall the details of the contract because my hon.

Supply-Transport
friend asked for the tabling of the correspondence in the course of the last session. I did have the details in my mind fairly well at that time because after the correspondence was tabled the item covering this payment was passed through the house and I fully expected that my hon. friend might bring it up then. I was prepared to deal with it then; I am not now. However, I can be fully prepared by eight o'clock. In any event I should like to bring this to his attention. While on the face of it it would appear that the contract did not go to the lowest tenderer, as a matter of fact the person who did the work did it at the amount of the low tender, and in fact did it for less money than the estimate of the department.
Mr. Cold well:	Only after considerable
investigation.


Lionel Chevrier: There is this point to be
kept in mind, namely, that this work was done in an isolated part of-


Major James William Coldwell: Saskatchewan.


Lionel Chevrier: -Saskatchewan. I understand no contractors are available there for this particular type of work.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes there are.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no there are not. I would tell my hon. friend this: If he wants to submit this to a committee I am perfectly satisfied that it be done, because I have looked into it very carefully. I am sure that nothing could have been done more than was done to see that the department and the government got value for the money that was spent. The requisite number of poles were put up.


Major James William Coldwell: They were put up with no contract.


Lionel Chevrier: They were put up by the only contractor who was available, and certainly the only contractor the department could get in that area. I would not have the slightest hesitation in referring this whole business to a committee, if there were any doubt in the minds of hon. members.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say to the minister that I am not accusing his department of any wrongdoing whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I think the department did take considerable care in the final settlement, as far as I can see from the records that are on my desk. But what I am pointing out is that here we have a man who is closely connected with a political organization, a member of the legislature of Saskatchewan, who seems to think that he is not required to tender in the ordinary way; that he can begin a job and finish it, wire down to Ottawa and ask for
TMr. Chevrier.]
the money almost before the calls for tender are posted in the post offices in the community. I am sorry that when this item came up last year I happened to be out of the house. When I came in I asked about it but was told that the item had passed.


Lionel Chevrier: The first question that my hon. friend asked was what was the amount of the payment. I can speak only from memory. I have not seen the papers for over a year. Speaking from memory I would say that the payment was in the neighbourhood of $10,000, which is $4,000 less than the estimate.


Major James William Coldwell: Which is the amount that the officials of the department said could properly be paid?


Lionel Chevrier: Quite.


Major James William Coldwell: But not the amount that was asked for; and the mileage settled for was different from the mileage alleged to have been covered when the original account was made.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: I congratulate the Department of Transport on having done this, but I am pointing out that in the old days this was not a very unusual sort of procedure in Saskatchewan.


Lionel Chevrier: We do not encourage it in the department, I can assure my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister if contracts for the construction of new buildings, works or land are being considered or acquired in British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; rebuilding and repoling of existing telephone line at Vanderhoof, Fort St. James, British Columbia, $18,910; for work at Smithers, British Columbia and Burns Lake, Francois Lake, British Columbia, Quesnel, British Columbia -


Edmund Davie Fulton: What work is that?


Lionel Chevrier: To rebuild and modernize existing telephone exchange, $16,100; Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, about $35,000 in those areas; Metallicizing and expanding of existing grounded telephone circuits and replacement of pole lines as required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there anything for the modernization or the improvement of the circuit in the southern portion of the area in the interior of the province?


Lionel Chevrier: There are quite a number of other items: Queen Charlotte islands, British Columbia, $11,680; Quesnel-Barkerville, British Columbia, $18,000; Port Aiberni-Ucluelet,

British Columbia, $50,800; Port Renfrew-Shawnigan Lake, $7,545; 100 Mile House-Canim Lake, British Columbia, $11,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Meteorological division-
Meteorological services-
517. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,116,836.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As a matter of fact I thought we could reach item 519, civil aviation division, on which the hon. member for Lake Centre wanted to ask some questions. There are only two items on meteorological services.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a big item of $6 million odd, namely item 517. I think we should call it six o'clock, because I note there is considerable increase over the previous year.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Apple-whaite for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in my previous remarks on this bill I had dealt with the first complaint of the Vancouver city council against the bill, which is that it asks for too large an increase in capital. This evening I propose to deal with their second ground of complaint, that under the company's present charter there is no protection against unreasonable charges being levied against this particular company by its parent and affiliated companies.
The real ownership and control of the British Columbia Telephone Company is in an American corporation known as Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company, which is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at Kansas City. It controls the British Columbia Telephone Company through a company in Montreal known as Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, which, incidentally, also controls different affiliated
British Columbia Telephone Company companies in British Columbia. Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, in its annual report, describes itself as an investment company. It controls the British Columbia Telephone Company through the common stock, and now owns 60,000 of the 80,000 common shares issued, these shares having a par value of $100 each. Only the common shares vote; preference and preferred shares have no vote in carrying on the business of the company.
Until November of last year only 60,000 common shares had been issued, and those of course were the ones held by Anglo-Canadian. Since that time there have been issued to the public the other 20,000 common shares. At the present time there are 40,000 more common shares being issued, to a par value of $4 million. Rights to subscribe for these new shares have been issued to the old holders of common shares on a basis whereby for each two shares now held there is the right to purchase one of the new shares.
The result is that Anglo-Canadian now has 60,000 rights with which it can buy
30,000	more shares at $132.50. They are not being offered at par, but rather at $32.50 over par. On April 13 there appeared in the Vancouver press an advertisement offering rights to subscribe for 27,800 ordinary shares. Obviously those must be from the rights issued to Anglo-Canadian, becaue no one else has that number. They are on sale at $4 per right, to the number of 55,600 rights. This means of course that from the sale of those rights Anglo-Canadian can get at least $200,000-which is a nice little melon to cut. In addition they will continue to hold control of the company.
It is through this Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company that unreasonable charges are being levied against the British Columbia Telephone Company, which telephone users in British Columbia are expected to pay. For example there is a licensing contract under which the British Columbia Telephone Company each year must pay one per cent of its gross operating revenue to Anglo-Canadian, which payment, in 1950, amounted to approximately $160,000. As a matter of fact it was only recently that the rate was cut to one per cent; before the application in 1950 to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in telephone rates, the company was paying one and one-half per cent; as I have said, however, before the recent application was made that was reduced to one per cent.
It is claimed that this one per cent is for technical advice and financial assistance rendered by Anglo-Canadian; but I would point out that Anglo-Canadian has no staff. It
2474	HOUSE OF
British Columbia Telephone Company is only a holding company; and when this contention was advanced by the city and other bodies appearing last year before the board, counsel for the British Columbia Telephone Company claimed that these services would be supplied by Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company, or by some of its other companies. Yet in 1948 Anglo-Canadian paid to Associated Telephone and Telegraph for service of this kind only $3,150, while in the same year they collected from British Columbia Telephone Company $181,051 for these same services. This charge against British Columbia Telephone Company was not allowed by the dominion income tax branch; it was ruled out as an improper expense; yet the board of transport commissioners ruled that it was a proper charge and that the telephone users in British Columbia must make it up.
Here is a good example of the way Anglo-Canadian is milking the British Columbia Telephone Company and, of course, in effect, is milking the telephone users of our province. Then there are other examples. Anglo-Canadian also controls a company known as Dominion Directory Company Limited. This company is supposed to look after the directories for the British Columbia Telephone Company. It gets 35 per cent on all contracts for advertising in the directory. Its office is in the office of British Columbia Telephone Company. I believe Bell Telephone Company, for example, look after their own directory. This appears to be just one more way of getting money out of the British Columbia Telephone Company for Anglo-Canadian and, in turn, for Associated Telephone and Telegraph.
Another instance is that Anglo-Canadian owns a company known as Canadian (B.C.) Telephones and Supplies Limited, which does the purchasing for British Columbia Telephone Company on a basis of 5 per cent. Previous to the application for an increase in rates this charge was 6 per cent. They look after other services for which they are paid by the British Columbia Telephone Company. These matters were all before the board of transport commissioners, and while they allowed the directory charges on the basis that they were merely a matter of management, they would not allow the full amount paid to this supply company. It was that bad. Actually, the British Columbia Telephone Company got 87 per cent of the amount applied for on the application.
You will see that there is nothing to prevent Anglo-Canadian setting up a number of other affiliated companies and charging the British Columbia Telephone Company for the services rendered. If they can do


it in one case they can do it in half a dozen. My point is that these various companies are not operating at arm's length and it is unfair for the telephone users to have to pay these amounts which are being milked out of the telephone company. Naturally there is considerable resentment in British Columbia. I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun of February 16, 1951, headed, "Where phone rates go." It reads in part:
If the transport board thinks these contracts-
That is, the contracts with the affiliated companies.
-are good business, then the city says there's nothing to prevent BCT from splitting up its operations into other parts and contracting with other affiliated- companies to run them for similar fees.
The contention that management hasn't used proper discretion can be aired in parliament by local M.P.'s during debate on BCT's private bill asking for power to raise its authorized capitalization from $25 million to $75 million.
Here is the significant part:
Vancouver hopes that either the bill will be blocked until BCT promises to change its habits or that parliament will give new guidance as to how the transport board should- view intercorporate arrangements when phone rates are next under review.
The city have summed up their position very neatly in a report presented by a committee of the city council. I should like to read one paragraph of that report as follows:
If the council concurs in the views advanced in the foregoing four paragraphs, your committee would further recommend that the city take all possible steps to endeavour to have presented to parliament the onerous nature of the contracts to which the British Columbia- Telephone Company is now subjected, when the private bill of the telephone company is under consideration, in an endeavour to obtain relief or amelioration from the adverse consequences of such contracts.
I submit that there should be -an amendment to the company's -charter to direct the board of transport -commissioners to investigate and take into account these contracts with affiliated -companies and -allow only those -charges which are reasonable in relation to services actually rendered. The people of British Columbia are entitled to this protection and they are entitled also to have the increase in -capital kept to a reasonable amount.
I urge upon my fellow members in the house to insist that this bill be changed accordingly.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in connection with this bill. A most exhaustive analysis of the bill has been made already by several British Columbia members, more particularly the hon. member who has just

resumed his seat, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and perhaps others. I think it is significant that although there are seven or eight members of parliament from what is generally called the greater Vancouver area where most of the subscribers of the British Columbia Telephone Company reside, the company had to go outside the greater Vancouver area to get a British Columbia member to sponsor the bill. I want to make it quite clear that I am not finding any fault with the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill. That is his business. Indeed, I compliment him upon making a very fair representation of the purposes of the bill and of the contentions of the company as to the need for further capital.
As far as I am concerned I shall confine myself to what I consider to be the main purpose of the bill, that is, to increase the capital stock from $25 million to $75 million.
I think that is too much of an increase to be granted at this time when the government because of defence needs is taking control over the expansion of industry and trying to prevent goods in short supply being used for purposes that are not essential. I think the house should consider very carefully all aspects and implications of this bill before granting the capital increase asked for.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) referred to two reports that were made to the council of the city of Vancouver on this application for an increase in capital. The Vancouver city council set up a committee consisting of Mr. D. E. McTaggart, an outstanding lawyer, who for many years was corporation council for Vancouver, and Mr. Charles Brakenridge, who for 25 or 30 years was chief engineer of the city. I should like to draw your attention to the report prepared by these two gentlemen because I know they are men of ability and integrity, and have been connected with Vancouver's affairs for a long time. They are accustomed to dealing with matters of this kind on the basis of the actual facts and the needs of the city of Vancouver and the welfare of its people. Any report to which they put their names should be carefully considered by this house.
There is one point on which I wish to make my own position absolutely clear. I believe that utilities of this nature should be publicly owned, in this case by the province of British Columbia. But I am firmly convinced that if the people do not take steps to acquire and operate such services then we are bound to grant sufficient means, or allow the companies operating them sufficient means to carry on their business. I think it is
27, 1951	2475
British Columbia Telephone Company important that I make that point clear. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) went into the merits of the bill so fully that it is hardly necessary for me to go over the same ground and perhaps repeat much of what he said. I am sure I could not say it so well or with the same clarity.
There is one point particularly which I wish to draw to the attention of the house. Although this company operates and has almost a complete monopoly on telephone service in the province of British Columbia, there is no control whatsoever over the company except that exercised by the board of transport commissioners with respect to an application for an increase in capital or in tolls. As shown by the report of Messrs. McTaggart and Brakenridge, I am afraid the board of transport commissioners is so far away from British Columbia that its members do not understand the people's needs.
Quite recently there came to my hand a letter which was sent to one of the British Columbia M.L.A.'s by a party on behalf of certain residents in an area in the municipality of Burnaby. The letter drew attention to the fact that in the opinion of the writer the company was discriminating against a certain area in the allocation of telephones. I do not know whether or not there is any merit in the contention, but I want to point out that there is no authority that can investigate such a charge and find out whether or not there is any merit in it. The M.L.A. sent the complaint to the public utilities commission at Victoria, and he received a letter in reply reading:
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter to the chairman of February 28, I am directed to advise that B.C. Telephone Company is under dominion jurisdiction.
That is all. The public utilities commission could not do anything. After the M.L.A. received that letter, he felt, logically enough, that if there was no authority to supervise the operations of the company in British Columbia there should be in Ottawa where the charter was granted. Therefore he sent me the complaint and I forwarded it to the board of transport commissioners. In due course I received the following letter in reply: Dear Sir:
I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, enclosing copy of petition from the residents of South Burnaby, B.C. regarding allocation of residential telephones, which is returned herewith.
I would point out for your information that the board has never considered that its powers with respect to telephone companies extend to the matter of furnishing or dealing with telephone service. Such powers as the board possesses are
2476	HOUSE OF COMMONS
British Columbia Telephone Company limited to matters affecting the tolls charged for the service. Under the circumstances the board is unable to be of any assistance.
The letter was signed by the acting secretary. I think the reading of these two letters is sufficient reason for not granting to the British Columbia Telephone Company too large an amount of capital at any one time because obviously the only control the people of British Columbia have over the company is when it has to make application here for an extension of capital, or applies to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in tolls. If we at this time authorize the amount of capital that they ask for, $50 million, which according to their way of financing they can increase to $100 million or even more, we are putting all the subscribers of the British Columbia Telephone Company under a severe handicap.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra went over the report made by the committee of investigation appointed by the city council of Vancouver pretty well clause by clause. He pointed out that in the first place the telephone company operates through a licence contract, and that the contract provides for an annual payment by the B.C. Telephone Company of one per cent of its gross operating revenues to the parent company, Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company of Montreal. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, it was brought out at the time of the application to the board of transport commissioners to increase the tolls that the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company did not provide and did not have the staff to provide any sort of service whatsoever to the people of British Columbia who use the services of the B.C. Telephone Company. Yet for the year 1948 the B.C. Telephone Company made a payment of $181,051 to the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, and it is not shown that any particular service was given in return for that large sum of money. Perhaps I might as well read the pertinent paragraph in the report. It is as follows:
Nevertheless the fact remains that while the B.C. Telephone Company paid to the Anglo Company for services under this contract for the year 1948 the sum of $181,051, the amount Anglo in turn paid to its parent, the Associated Company, for such service for the same year only amounted to $3,150.


Mr. Applewhaife:: Would the hon. member kindly identify the report from which he has read a quotation?


Angus MacInnis: I think I mentioned the report. It is a report prepared by Messrs. McTaggart and Brakenridge.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: A report prepared for the city of Vancouver.


Angus MacInnis: 
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the two hon. members for Vancouver in discussing this bill. I do so because I agree with what they have said. I think the practice is becoming all too prevalent of having bills brought into this house with very little knowledge of what they involve. They are passed, and then two or three years later we get repercussions. There are two things I do not like in the procedure that has been followed in connection with this bill. In the first place, with all due respect to the sponsor of the bill, I think it should have been sponsored by a member from Vancouver.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, in discussing the principle of legislation is it a legitimate argument to mention who happens to introduce the bill in question?


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: You must have something else to say.


Clarence Gillis: I will before I am through.
That is my first point, and that is why I am speaking tonight. That sort of thing makes me suspicious. If a bill was to be introduced in this house that was in the best interests of the part of the country I represent, I would expect to introduce it. If it is necessary to by-pass me in order to get it
British Columbia Telephone Company before the house, then I think there must be something the matter with it. I am not holding that against the hon. member. He is a very capable member and a good friend of mine, and I would be the last man in this house to suggest that he would sponsor something that was not absolutely legitimate. But I do suspect the motives of those who may be taking advantage of his innocence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second thing that makes me suspicious, and another reason why I am on my feet, is that this bill came through the back door. It had its origin in another place. That does not reflect on the other place, but if it is necessary for me to visit your home, Mr. Speaker, I will not sneak in the back door; I shall come in the front way, and let you know exactly the purpose of my visit. The procedure is in reverse. Under ordinary circumstances, and for a long time, any bill that came before the House of Commons went through the resolution stage, if it was a money bill, or was introduced by a member of the house. Then, it generally went to a committee of this house which examined it in all its details, and brought it back to this house. I am not in favour of the procedure of having a bill passed through the other place and come in the back door. It is given to the members of this house with very little knowledge of what the implications of that bill are.
It is not as innocent as it sounds, Mr. Speaker. It is merely following up a lot of legislation that is tied up with a great octopus on this North American continent in the telephone business. It has for its purpose, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr- Green) and the hon- member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) suggested, an increase in capital from $25 million to $75 million, an increase of $50 million. Well, that is a lot of money for a little company. It is supposed to be a small company, an innocent little struggling company that is trying to expand its services out into the wilds of British Columbia. It is not so small, and it is not so innocent. It is merely one of the arms of the octopus that stretch out in that particular spot.
I do not want to waste the time of the house, but I have in my hand a chart that sets out exactly what the tie-in is on the North American continent, not in Canada alone, of this innocent, poor little company that has this very innocent, poor little bill before the house. They only want to increase their share capital by $50 million, and in addition to that they want to make a change in the capital structure. They want to break down the value of the shares from $100 to $25; that may not be so innocent as it sounds,

British Columbia Telephone Company either. A lot of widows and orphans, people with a little money, can buy twenty-five dollar shares. After they get enough of these twenty-five dollar shares, someone can buy them all in and own them all overnight, thus squeezing out the little fellow. That has been the history of the development of practically all industries on this continent.
I am not going to read this, but at the top of the chart there is the Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company of the United States, which is tied in with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which in turn is tied in with the Bell Telephone Company and some twelve other companies which are tied in with the B.C. Telephone Company. In my opinion there is a complete tie-up, a directive tie-up with the large companies in the United States and Canada. This is not as innocent as it appears. Let us take a look, for a moment, at what happens in the development of this type of organization, and the monopoly position that it holds today. There is no one in this house or in this country who can fool me into believing that the Bell Telephone or the B.C. Telephone or any of these other subsidiaries are just little struggling organizations trying to take care of themselves. It is not so. They have a granddaddy somewhere with a lot of power who is taking very good care of the little family. As the member for Vancouver East has suggested, the company is getting a long way into the pocketbook of anyone who is in a position to take advantage of its service.
What happens when the capital of a company is expanded, as is suggested in this bill? You do not have to go far to find out. We have had lesson after lesson during the lifetime of most of the members in this house, all of them in fact, and in the very organization we are talking about tonight. In my hand I hold a little book entitled "What Price Telephones?" by Norman Perelman. It contains a complete history of the development of these companies in the United States like American Telephone and Telegraph, the granddaddy of them all. Back in 1929, 1930 and 1935, what happened to the employees of that particular organization when it made a large capital expansion and invested a lot of money that did not turn out as well as the company expected? It was not the board of directors or the shareholders that suffered, it was the employees of that organization. I am going to read just a few extracts from this booklet so you will not think I am merely expressing my own opinion. These are the facts as contained in this research pamphlet on the development of telephones on the North American continent, with particular reference to the United States. I use the [Mr. Gillis.l
United States because practically all of that type of organization in Canada is merely a subsidiary of a United States company which put up the original capital.
At page 23 of this little booklet you will find this statement. I am reading these extracts because they are relevant to the bill that is before the house at this time requesting a capital expansion. This has to do with what happened in a company that did get a large capital expansion, and did not invest it wisely. It has to do with employees' relations, tying that in with the subject I have just indicated.
As in so many other respects, Bell's reputation as a model employer does not stand up under close scrutiny. In reality, a Bell employee has little security. Until 1929. with the continued growth of the system, the number of workers steadily increased. The following year, however, although the total revenues exceeded those of 1929 by $37 million, representing the highest peak in Bell's history up to that time, the number of employees was decreased by 60,000. A. T. & T. during 1930 had greatly expanded its capital investment. Business did not increase according to anticipations and, to avoid a reduction in the net income, the workers, not the stockholders, were made to suffer for management's mistake. Throughout the depression A. T. & T. continued to pay $9 dividends per share, while its level of employment constantly declined. Between 1929 and the end of 1935, 184,600 workers were let go in one way or another. When, in 1937 another new high in A. T. & T.'s history was reached, the number of employees was 134,000 less than in 1929.
This reduced labour force failed to hamper the handling of the A. T. & T.'s increased business. Between 1930-33, a speed-up system had been inaugurated, resulting in the less, of jobs by over 30,000 persons. The introduction of the dial phone accounted for approximately 20,000 more unemployed, while a sharp decline in new construction threw an additional 40,000 out of work.
In the main, workers least able to afford it were hit by this curtailment of employment, for the lowest wage groups were those from which the discharges were made. Yet, at the same time, "the total dividend payments grew from $116,000,000 in 1929 to $168,000,000 in 1935."
Thus Bell's contribution to the unemployment of the depression years is obvious. Kqually apparent is what could have been done to alleviate it.
I read these extracts into the record merely to show that a request from the company such as we are getting at this time does not necessarily mean that that company is in a prosperous condition, or that it is going to expand its services or create more employment, or that it is going to improve its services. What I read of course took place during the depression years, but it shows that the judgment of the management in making large investments at that time was not justified. That could also be said today.
I do not think that this is the time for the British Columbia Telephone Company to come to this House of Commons and ask for the increase in capital that they are asking for. When you consider that this country is

embarking upon a defence program that is going to last for the next three years, as far as government policy at the present time is concerned, and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has told the house time and time again that we are going to have to suffer and tighten our belts as far as civilian requirements are concerned; that there is going to be a shortage of material in everything that goes into ordinary consumption goods; and that at least 25 per cent of plant production, plus the raw materials in this country, are to be used for war purposes: in the light of these statements and in the light of the developing international situation, nobody in this house can rise in his place and justify the granting to this company at this time the right to increase its capital by $50 million in anticipation of increasing and expanding the services, because the government has told us time and time again that the materials are not going to be available.
In view of the fact that there are many implications in the expansion of the capital of this company, and that we have not sufficient information on the subject matter of this bill, I believe that before we adopt the principle of it on second reading the bill should go to a committee of this house for a thorough study, and that it should come back from that committee to the house, and that the sponsors of it should be prepared then to give us all the necessary information in order for us to pass the bill as it is in its present form. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 116 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I believe that this action is necessary at this time. I believe that that is the logical and sound thing for hon. members to do. I believe that for two reasons: One, I do not think we have the information we require to grant the request contained in this bill at this time; and, two, if we had the knowledge and the power I still question whether it is good business for hon. members at this time to be granting a lease, as it were, to companies that are going to engage in ordinary civilian activities, to give them the right to go into the market with an expanded capital, such as is suggested in this bill, and bid against the defence departments for the necessary materials that we shall require in order to bring our defence program to the fruition that is envisaged by the government. I think that is putting the company in the field to compete for materials necessary to defence at
27, 1951	2479
British Columbia Telephone Company this time, and I think the house should seriously consider that angle of it. It will not do any harm to have this matter held up for a few weeks, at least, in order for us to get what information we can from the Department of Trade and Commerce, the defence departments and others who are in a position to give us what I consider is necessary at this time in order to make an intelligent decision on the matter.
I see we have about a minute left, Mr. Speaker. I am going to leave enough time for you to read the amendment and give hon. members an opportunity to decide what is what.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules of the house this bill after second reading is referred to that committee. Not only the subject matter, but the whole bill, is so referred. In these circumstances, is it in order to move that the subject matter only should be referred to the committee, pending the second reading of the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps between now and the next time this matter comes up you might give further thought to it. I would suggest that you look up the record of the debates on the Bell Telephone Company's bill which took place in this house in 1948. On that occasion several amendments were moved. Some of them were ruled out of order, but an amendment in terms precisely similar to this one was allowed. There are citations in Beauchesne which indicate the difference that there is between the bill itself and the subject matter of the bill. A bill can be referred to a committee only after it has had second reading, but the subject matter can be referred prior to the giving of second reading to the bill, or before the principle has been approved. That course was adopted, as a matter of fact, with respect to a bill of mine some years ago, and the result was that the subject matter was discussed by the committee to which it was referred. Although no action was taken that year, the result of that discussion was that favourable action was taken a year or two later.
I submit that the amendment is perfectly proper; it is a routine motion that perhaps Your Honour will consider between now and eight o'clock the next evening this bill is called.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take into consideration what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has had to say.
It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

Supply-Transport


Edward Turney Applewhaite: On a question of privilege, Your Honour has indicated that you will take into consideration the point of order that has been raised. I assume that Your Honour will also be willing to hear representations on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Following the practice, I
shall be glad to hear further representations from any hon. member before I make my ruling.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air services-
Meteorological division-
Meteorological services-
517. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,116,836.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there is quite
a substantial increase in this item over last year, nearly a million dollars. I do not propose to question every item simply because there is an increase, if the reason for the increase is obvious, and is considered to be necessary. However, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to make a few observations as to the reasons for the increase in this instance because, on first inspection, it would appear that the details would show that civil salaries and wages are up to quite a considerable extent. Perhaps that is accounted for by the 10 per cent increase in the wage and salary levels. I notice however that the item for materials and supplies is up to a considerable extent. Then, the same would apply to the item for office stationery, supplies and equipment. Increases in other items as well would seem to indicate that there must be some increase in the service being given. I do not recall any statement to that effect, and I wonder if the minister would give an explanation sufficient to satisfy the committee that the increase is necessary and must be voted.


Lionel Chevrier: The two main items, of
course, in which there have been increases are salaries and wages of employees. Those are due to increases which have been given throughout the civil service.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that.


Lionel Chevrier: They amount to almost half a million dollars. The other considerable increase relates to materials and supplies, to the extent of $152,600. It is due to generally higher costs, based on the price index of the dominion bureau of statistics, and to the expanded use of equipment. The breakdown goes on to indicate that the costs of
!
materials and equipment have risen substantially, as the hon. member knows. Then there are a number of smaller items where there have been increases. The two I have mentioned are the main ones, and amount to almost $700,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate that materials will have increased in price, as compared with last year. I had thought that price increases might not be sufficient to account for the $150,000, unless there was a considerable increase in volume. If the minister is in a position to say that the increase in prices pretty well accounts for the increase in the amount of the item for materials and supplies, we will have to accept it.
Then there are increases for teletype, amounting to $20,000; office stationery, supplies and equipment amounting to $34,000; and weather observer contracts, $50,000. These items are of a type which would raise the presumption that there must be an expanded service. If that is not so, then I would question seriously the need for this increased expenditure. That is the explanation I should like to have.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to deal with two items to which my hon. friend referred. There is an increase in the teletype item amounting to $21,800. There is included in this estimate a proposed additional circuit installation which will cost $14,844, and the replacement of an old model teletype with a modern highspeed type which accounts for $6,956. The increase in the item for weather observer contracts comes about by an upward revision of contract rates, chiefly in Newfoundland, the extension of certain contracts to a full year basis, and payments on account of new contracts. That accounts for $53,200. Those were not in last year's estimates.


Mr. Wright:: What co-operation or co-ordination is there between the meteorological branch in this department and that in the air force? Does the minister's department do part of the meteorological observation work for the air force, or have they their own department? Would it be possible to make a saving through co-operation, if there is a duplication of service?


Lionel Chevrier: No; the airports under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport are operated for the benefit of all groups, including national defence. In those airports we have meteorologists and radio operators, and we have tower operators. But this is not a duplicated service. In other words, the air force or any division of national defence has nothing to do with this particular service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Civil aviation division-
529. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $768,060.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I believe some questions might be asked under this Item relative to Canada's defence plans. Some time ago the Minister of Transport spoke in Quebec in regard to the general situation respecting civil aviation. My first question would be the extent to which the basic plans already existing, so far as civil aviation is concerned, are geared to the needs of the country, should an emergency arise in any part of the world, particularly as it would affect Canada.
Generally speaking, the situation as I see it is that the whole development in connection with civil aviation, or at least the major portion of it, is to permit of a rapid extension of air facilities should an emergency arise or should a war take place. It is because of the need for development and extension of civil aviation that I bring to the attention of the minister the situation in northern Saskatchewan and' in Manitoba. The hon. member for Prince Albert would no doubt make these representations if he were here but, as one of his constituents, I make them, because I know he is unavoidably absent this evening.
Great developments are taking place in northern Saskatchewan. Uranium finds in the last year have possibilities beyond anything that has ever been discovered in our country. The nearest location to those developments is the city of Prince Albert in northern Saskatchewan, and I should like to learn from the minister whether consideration has been given to extending the runways at Prince Albert so as to make them available for all-year-round traffic-in other words, to make permanent runways at that point.
At the same time I would refer to another northern airport, which is located in Manitoba at Flin Flon. Certainly Flin Flon is one airport that is necessary from a defence standpoint, as is also that at Prince Albert. Both should be in a position to provide adequate air facilities and adequate air protection for the sources of vital base metal supplies. I should like to learn from the minister in a general way something of his plans in connection with the expansion of civil aviation so that these two areas, which today do not enjoy proper facilities or proper landing fields, should be provided therewith. I am not one of those who ask for expenditures unless I believe they are necessary and will be self-liquidating. These are the two jumping-off places into the north from Manitoba and
Supply-Transport
Saskatchewan and I feel that they deserve the best air facilities that can be provided by the department.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask with regard to any conferences that have taken place during the year having to do with the development of the doctrine of freedom of the air. This may not come under this vote and I do not know under what item it would come, but I know during the past years there has been considerable discussion about the need of expanding the principle of the freedom of the air to the end that civil aviation may be properly expanded. As it is today, most nations have refused to accept the proposition that freedom of the air in so far as commercial rights are concerned should be accepted as part of the international air law.
I should like to ask the degree to which there has been expansion within the last year by Canadian Pacific Air Lines in their Pacific services. Last November there was some discussion as to whether C.P.A. would provide for calls at New Zealand in its Australia-Vancouver service. I should like the minister to give the committee a picture of the developments that have taken place during the last year and also any plans there are for the expansion of civil aviation.
There is no matter more important to our defence than the widest possible expansion of civil aviation. In making the suggestions that I have in reference to Prince Albert and Flin Flon I do so because I believe that with the development of minerals in northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba something should be done, not only to expand the commercial position of these airports but to make them available as military outposts in the event that our defences are threatened in any way.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the need for expanding the airport facilities at Regina. As I understand it, the North Star planes of the T.C.A. are unable to land at Regina. The capital city of Saskatchewan should have airport facilities sufficient to handle the largest planes. If the runways at Regina were extended perhaps one of the flights of the T.C.A. from Vancouver to Winnipeg could be dropped down at Regina and so improve the air services available to the people of southern Saskatchewan. I ask the minister to give consideration to this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to add a word or two to what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said with regard to the need for a civil aviation development program. The hon. member for Lake Centre has outlined

Supply-Transport
the subject so well that there is probably not much need for me to elaborate. I agree fully with the points he has made, and particularly with reference to the importance of the development of civil aviation.
When the minister replies I should like him to deal with the question of airport development. In my view there is need for an over-all program of airport development as part of a civil aviation expansion program. As the minister well knows, there are a number of airports to which I could refer in detail. However, I have taken these up with the minister by correspondence and I do not think it would be proper for me to repeat the details on this occasion. I feel that the airports in which I am interested, as well as those in which other hon. members are interested, should be handled as part of an over-all program rather than, as I think has been the case in the past, as a sort of hodgepodge development.
Grants have been made in individual cases where it has been felt they were justified, or where sufficient pressure has been put on in support of a local case. If we look at the details of one of the subsequent items we can see where a number of small grants are being made to municipalities, in some cases to assist them in the development of airports. I think this matter goes beyond what might be regarded primarily as a municipal responsibility.
I base this argument on the fact that under government policy Trans-Canada Air Lines is the only air line which is permitted to operate on the main routes in Canada. For that reason T.C.A. are in a preferred position. It is almost a foregone conclusion that there will not be many other air lines, if any, which will be able to undertake a program of airport construction of their own. In the past the railways and transportation companies have had to provide their own terminal facilities, except for those ports which come under the national harbours board where there may be some co-operation. However, generally speaking the transportation companies have had to provide their own transportation facilities, including tracks and buildings.
As we were told in the committee, T.C.A. has virtually no responsibility with respect to providing airport facilities, either runways or buildings. If the government has assumed that responsibility for T.C.A. it means that those municipalities served by T.C.A. are in an extremely fortunate position. For the reasons which I have given, it is h'ardly likely that private air lines will be able to embark on a program of airport construction which will have the effect of providing first-class
[Mr. Fulton.1
airports for those municipalities server by private lines. Therefore the case almost is that if a municipality wishes to have an airport at the present time the responsibility generally speaking is entirely that of the municipality, which is very different indeed from the history with respect to other means of transportation and communication. That is why I say it seems to me that it is essential, as one aspect of a civil aviation development program, that a sound and progressive program of airport development must be designed, laid down and carried through by progressive stages. It is admittedly a very expensive thing. I am not suggesting that we should set ourselves a target of one hundred airports a year or anything of that sort, but I am suggesting we should have a program, which could be followed through consistently, of developing airports at centres other than those served by T.C.A.
I think that the opinions I have expressed here follow logically from the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Lake Centre, with which I have said I agree, that the development of civil aviation is important not only from a commercial, but also from a defence, point of view. Certainly one of the primary necessities of the development of any program of civil aviation is a program of airport expansion. When the minister replies I wish he would make some comments on that. Perhaps I am not the original thinker here. It is likely that the department has already given some thought to this matter, and if so I would be grateful if the minister would tell us what general outline or program they have in mind.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister replies, one of the points raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre was dealt with by the Turgeon commission. In chapter 13 of their report under the heading "Air Transportation" we find that the first suggestion made to them as to airports was as follows:
That additional airstrips should be constructed in northern areas to provide better air transport between mining localities and commercial centres.
When the commission dealt with that matter they had this to say on page 261:
An interdepartmental committee was established about one year ago for the purpose of studying proposals of financial assistance for the construction of additional airports in northern areas.
Apparently there is a recognized need for the development of further airstrips in northern Canada. When the minister replies I would ask him to deal with this particular point.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that I have been asked by

hon. gentlemen opposite to put on Hansard the pattern and the program of the department with reference to aviation developments. It was asked of me last year and the year before, but I will gladly do it again if it is the wish of the members. There is a very definite program with reference to the development of civil airports and civil aviation services together with a program developed in co-operation with officers of national defence. The object of the policy of the department is first of all to see to the progressive development of main line airports such as those which are used by T.C.A. and C.P.A. across Canada, and to permit the utilization of the most modern types of aircraft at the minimum capital outlay.
Next it is the policy to see to the development of a minimum number of international airports, and also to assist and encourage municipalities that are anxious to develop their own airports, to come to their assistance where it seems desirable that such airports should be developed, maintained and operated to standards set out by the dominion government. Then we seek to assist in the establishment of airstrips or bases feeding remote centres, such as have been referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, for the purpose of stimulating the development of Canada's natural resources. As is stated in the report, there has been in existence for some time an interdepartmental committee composed of officers of the Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance whose responsibility it is to consider the over-all program and to co-ordinate it with defence if need be, so that we have not only a program for civil development but we also are ready to assist national defence should they require additional strips or additional facilities in airports operated by the Department of National Defence.
The committee has met on a number of occasions and is responsible for the program, part of which will be seen not in this item but in the next item. I think I need hardly tell the committee that the program which can be seen in these estimates is not nearly as ambitious as the officers of the department would have wished it to be, and I speak now exclusively of civil development. Because of the priority which national defence must of necessity take over civil development, we have had to curtail very severely the expanding of civil aviation, civil airports and civil airways in the present fiscal year. Because of that it will be seen that the estimates are not nearly as high as we would have wanted them to be.
Supply-Transport
We have some items here dealing with airports that have been referred to. I think I can safely say that there are a considerable number of items dealing with radio development, meteorological development and air services development in the Northwest Territories. When we come to those items I will gladly put them on the record if need be. We have an item for Flin Flon.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a grant in aid to the municipality in the amount of $25,000. We are making a survey now of a field for Flin Flon. Nothing definite has been announced but there is this item in the estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that in addition to the $25,000 last year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is in addition to the grant of $25,000 of last year which with this amount, makes $50,000. Then we are giving consideration to a field close to Goldfields. Nothing has been decided with reference to it.


John George Diefenbaker: What consideration is being given to the Goldfields proposition?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to say. We are considering whether or not we will establish an airstrip there. In so far as Prince Albert is concerned, we have not got it under consideration, and there is no vote in the estimates covering that area. I was asked a question about freedom of the air, the five freedoms. There have been no special international air conferences during the last fiscal term. Of course there is continually in session either at the assembly or through the council the ICAO meetings at Montreal, and matters affecting freedom of the air are brought up regularly at that international organization. I am not able to state that additional agreements have been entered into between Canada and any other countries sm" two agreements were completed with the United Kingdom and the United States.
In reference to the question of stop-over rights for C.P.A. in New Zealand, which was raised in the house and which received some attention when the Prime Minister of New Zealand was here, unfortunately that has not been advanced any further. All I can say is that Australia has indicated to us that they would have no objection to traffic movements through New Zealand to their country, but we have not yet been able to get any firm assurance from the government of New Zealand that they are willing to allow stop-over rights in favor of C.P.A.


John George Diefenbaker: What seems to be their objection? When we were there last fall

Supply-Transport
they appeared very anxious to have direct connection with Canada. On every hand members of the house of representatives asked us whether something could not be done to assure that Canadian Pacific Air Lines would have a port of call in New Zealand. Certainly it would complete the picture and would draw us still closer to those dominions in which we have a very considerable interest. Canadian Pacific Air Lines has done a magnificent job with its air service between Vancouver and Australia, and I find it difficult to understand why any objection should be raised by the New Zealand government to landing rights there, particularly in view of the fact that, as the minister says, the government of Australia has no objection to that course being followed.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish I could give my hon. friend an answer to that question, but unfortunately I cannot. I do not know the reason. All I can say is that when the prime minister was here, in the discussions he had with our own Prime Minister and with me I think he too went away with the idea that there was no reason why C.P.A. should not have these rights. I understand, however, that there is a division of opinion over there as to the effect it might have on New Zealand trade, though they have been assured that stopover rights mean exactly that. Stop-over rights mean the right of a through passenger from Vancouver to Australia, let us say, to stop over in New Zealand for the matter of a week, since the trip is a weekly affair, and do not in any way mean taking away New Zealand traffic from the British commonwealth lines operating in those two dominions. Beyond that I cannot add anything. I know personally I have made the strongest representations to the representative of New Zealand in this country. He knows our position and our wishes and desires. I am sure he understands them and has explained them very carefully to his country. But I -am not able to say that it has been possible for the government of that commonwealth to grant stop-over rights.
In reference to Regina, there is an item in the next estimate dealing with the development of a strip at that airport.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the amount?


Lionel Chevrier: 


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was interested in the statement by the minister on the interdepartmental committee. I observe that on that committee there are representatives of the Department of National Defence, as of course everyone will agree there should be. May I ask the

minister whether that committee has referred to it any proposals of the Department of National Defence arising purely within that department for the location and construction of new airports for defence purposes, so that as far as may be possible the defence airport construction program may be integrated with the transport department airport development program?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is consultation between the officers of national defence and our officers. There is also reference by national defence to the committee for advice on the desirability of extending a strip in an airport belonging to national defence, and the decision of the committee is later referred to the responsible minister, who takes it up with his colleagues.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was just one other matter I wished to refer to, and it does not concern only new construction. I am referring to the airport and meteorological station-primarily the airport-at Dog Creek in British Columbia, which is situated about fifty miles from nowhere. There is a transport department meteorological station there, and during the war quite an. extensive airstrip was constructed. There is also a radio beam station. All these installations have to be maintained at very considerable expense because of the distance from any supply centre. There is a growing need for an airport at one of the other communities in the district to which I have already referred, Williams Lake. I wish the two departments would take up this matter jointly and see whether it would not be in the interests of over-all economy to move the present installation to a point where it could be serviced much more readily, and where it could form part of the eventual over-all development of an airport at Williams Lake, which is a supply and distribution centre for that part of the Cariboo country. It seems to me that might be taken up as a joint civil-defence matter for interdepartmental consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the matter has already been referred to the committee, which feels that the Dog Creek airport is a good one. While the population in that area is not very dense, still the committee feels it is an excellent airport. They have not the same opinion of Williams Lake, which is not in the same category. It is a poor airport.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; and the Department of National Defence is not interested in the Williams Lake airport. So the committee felt

they should not disturb the present position where there is a good airport and particularly where national defence feel that there is no sound reason for moving from one to the other. If an emergency developed greater than the one which exists at the moment it might be possible to again consider Williams Lake, but at the moment that is the position.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that point I would simply observe that obviously I would not care to disagree offhand with the view of the committee to which the minister has referred, but the fact remains that the Dog Creek installation is fifty miles from anywhere. As far as constructing any installation there is concerned, or expanding any installation, the same considerations I have referred to with respect to the existing installation of course would militate against that. I cannot go further at the moment. It is a matter on which a comparison of figures and costs perhaps should be obtained, and I shall look further into that aspect. This is the first time I have actually heard that the decision of the committee has been given. I will have to look into the matter further and perhaps pursue it at another time.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Would the minister indicate whether there is provision in the estimates for expanding and improving the airport at London, Ontario? I believe the hon. member for London was interested in that matter, and in fact all through western Ontario we are interested.


Lionel Chevrier: That really comes under the next item. I wonder if we could not stick to this one for the time being, and I will give that information when we come to the item.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask about the accommodation for T.C.A. passengers who are forced to spend the night at Gander. Last September I had the misfortune of having to spend the night there, and the accommodation was at the end of a runway. Every five mmutes there was a large four-engine plane lanftdng or taking off, so it was impossible to sleep. Has there been any change in the location of the sleeping accommodation for passengers?


Lionel Chevrier: May I deal with that under the other item? There is an item for that later, and it comes under that.


William Joseph Browne: It comes under this item.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


William Joseph Browne: I thought it did.


Lionel Chevrier: Unfortunately, it does not.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the difference in the regulations applying to planes which fly, for example, into the north country and planes which fly the established routes in the southern part of Canada. I believe that a plane flying passengers into the north must carry a certain type of emergency equipment, but that is not true of ordinary passenger planes flying across the southern portion of Canada.
Shortly before Christmas last year one of the Canadian Pacific planes flying from Vancouver to Calgary crashed near Penticton. In that crash the pilot was killed, and the co-pilot was fatally injured. It took about two days for help to arrive, and in the meantime the co-pilot died. He suffered terribly until his death, as the plane did not carry emergency equipment. It apparently was not required to carry emergency equipment to any extent. I believe it had a compass, papers, chocolate, sugar, aspirins, veronal, a hatchet and matches. There were also some bandages and a few splints, but not even in sufficient quantity for the one injured person. There were also a few blankets, but all of those were required for the co-pilot. Fortunately all the passengers were saved but they suffered a great deal. I believe there should be some regulations brought into effect concerning emergency equipment on these planes. A trans-Canada plane might come down in the mountains of British Columbia or in northern Ontario. I do not understand why such planes are not required to carry some type of emergency equipment. Perhaps the thought is that if the plane crashes everyone is going to be killed anyway, and there is no use carrying anything for an emergency. In this particular case, emergency equipment would have been of great value. It might even have saved the life of the co-pilot, although I do not know that it would. Why is it there is no provision made for this type of equipment to be carried on planes flying across the settled parts of Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I remember that accident quite well. I know owing to the coolness and dexterity of the pilot all of the passengers were saved, which was quite fortunate. I should say to my hon. friend that there is no difference in the airworthiness requirements for planes flying on the international domestic main line route and those flying into the north country. Neither is there any difference in so far as emergency equipment is concerned. The Canadian Pacific plane to which reference has been made was required to carry emergency equipment. There is this difference that in

Supply-Transport
flying into the north country they take rations and so forth, which they would not normally take on main line routes.
In the case to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra refers, there was first-aid equipment on that aircraft. Over and above that, there was a qualified nurse. Canadian Pacific Air Lines, just as T.C.A., are required to carry qualified nurses on the domestic routes across Canada. They also have the first-aid equipment which is compulsory.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest that the
minister check this a little further. My informant was on the plane and was a qualified nurse. There was not sufficient equipment on that plane to look after the injured co-pilot. I believe there are regulations requiring the carrying of emergency equipment on planes flying into the north, in fact I have seen them myself. I cannot put my finger on them at the moment, but they require a certain amount of food, winter clothing and one thing and another of that type. Apparently there is nothing like that required for these ordinary passenger planes travelling across Canada. Can the minister tell us exactly what equipment has to be carried on the T.C.A. and C.P.A. planes for emergency? Could he give the committee a list of the equipment?


Lionel Chevrier: I will have to get the regulation and table it. I have not a copy of it here, but I am informed that there was this equipment on the plane in question. However, I would be glad, ini view of the statement made by the hon. member, to look into the matter further.


Howard Charles Green: For example, there were no drugs, stretcher, food, water, axes, shovels, spades, rope, tarpaulin, heater or clothing such as socks, boots and mitts which would be required in midwinter in the case of a plane landing in the mountains. None of that material was on the plane. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Canadian Pacific did not comply with all the regulations, because I believe they did. But I would urge upon the minister to check his regulations and see whether there is not something further required for use in an emergency of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: There is just one other matter. In connection with the answers given by the minister, I do not usually express my appreciation of a complete answer, but I do in this case. I think the minister went into considerable detail, and naturally such an effort as that on his part causes those who are questioning him to reciprocate. He has mentioned what is being done at Flin Flon and the additional $25,000 to be voted this year,

which will be most helpful and will provide an airport there, necessary not only for the opening of the north country but also for defence should defence become necessary.
He has stated also that, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, there are no plans for Prince Albert. The minister suggests that consideration is being given to an airfield at Goldfields. I presume that is for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the uranium field that is located not too distant from Goldfields. I feel that I speak for the people of Prince Albert as well as northern Saskatchewan when I say that unless the facilities in Prince Albert are made much better than they are now, anything done at Goldfields will be of little help in opening that uranium country. After all, Prince Albert is the gateway of the north in Saskatchewan. It is the nearest place to Goldfields, and there is going to be a great development there. The uranium find is supposed to be one of the most valuable in North America. Prince Albert has in operation today an airport which permits the Canadian Pacific Air Lines to land there. But it is not an airport in keeping with the responsibility that will fall on it when the northern development takes place, as we believe it will.
This request of mine for reconsideration of the laying of all-weather runways in Prince Albert will result in some expenditure, but it will be self-liquidating, and it is necessary in connection with our defence. Prince Albert is the closest to the uranium fields. The airport in Saskatoon is too far removed to be the gateway into the development that is taking place. I suggest to the minister that this matter be brought to the attention of the interdepartmental committee, and that there be established in that city runways that will permit of the development being expanded into the north, which is now in its infancy, but promises to be one of the greatest developments in our country, so far as uranium is concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was pleased to hear minister say a few minutes ago that $300,000-


Lionel Chevrier: Could we have that discussion on the next item? This item has to do with regulatory services of civil air transport.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry; I thought it was
this item.


Howard Charles Green: I think this comes under the
item. Last fall press dispatches appeared to * the effect that plans were being made for a reserve of transport planes in Canada for use

m the event of an emergency such as war. This dispatch is dated November 3, and reads:
Steps are being taken by R.C.A.F. officials and civilian agencies to provide Canada with a reserve of transport aircraft which could be used for airlift work in an emergency.
A plan by which the government1 may acquire transport-type planes and turn them over to civilian operators on a loan or lease basis has already been discussed by high government officials, it was learned Thursday. The R.C.A.F. favours the idea.
The dispatch also quotes the minister as having dealt with the subject at a convention at Montebello. Can he tell us whether there are any plans of that kind in mind?


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell the hon. gentleman that representations have been made by the commercial operators for assistance in connection with new equipment. There are no plans; applications have been made, and studies are in progress at this time; but there is no decision on the matter that I can make any statement upon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
520.	Civil aviation services, $8,808,885.
Hazen Robert Argue: Is this the item?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. May I deal with the
matter that we discussed under the other item. I think the committee will want to know what are the amounts. I am sorry, it is vote 523 and not 520. Item 520 has to do with civil aviation services.


John George Diefenbaker: What does it comprise?


Lionel Chevrier: It comprises the maintenance and operation of all airways facilities and airports under or controlled by the Department of Transport. There are 112 airports, aerodromes, landing fields and associated facilities. It provides for the salaries and wages of all of the civilian aviation employees of the department in these 112 airports. These salaries run into almost $3,750,000.


John George Diefenbaker: How many employees
are there?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a total of 2,303
under this vote.


John George Diefenbaker: How many were there
last year?


Lionel Chevrier: There were 2,296 so there
is not much difference. This vote also provides for the repair and upkeep of equipment, the materials and supplies which are pretty costly, running into almost $2,500,000. It also provides for assistance toward the 80709-159
Supply-Transport
operation of seven municipal airports, as well as administration expenses of headquarters and district offices.


George Alexander Drew: What are those municipal
airports?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, from memory, Vancouver is one and Edmonton, is another. These are the two that come to mind at the moment. I can get a complete list for my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Under this item can the
minister tell us the present position with regard to the Vancouver airport? There have been press dispatches to the effect that the government is buying the airport, but as yet nothing definite has been published.


Lionel Chevrier: Could we have that question under vote 523 which is the vote for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, lands and new equipment? In that vote there is a substantial amount of money for the Vancouver airport.


George Alexander Drew: What materials and supplies are covered? I mean the general nature of them.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can get that for my hon. friend.


George Alexander Drew: Covered by this item of


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is a substantial amount. This provides for gasoline, oil, grease, fuel oil and parts required for eleven headquarters, and all maintenance equipment at the various airports as well as for district offices; vehicles; also quantities of domestic fuel required for heating, and diesel fuel for lighting plants; all purchases of supplies in connection with the maintenance of airports, which is broken down under eight or nine heads as follows: coal, coke, wood fuel and coal oil, $1 million; gasoline, oil and grease, $203,000; provisions and commissary supplies, $600,000; uniforms and kits, $5,000; electrical supplies, $65,000; aircraft supplies, $95,000.


George Alexander Drew: So that I may understand this item, there is for instance a substantial figure for gasoline, and also a figure for aircraft supplies. What I am not clear on is what kind of supplies they would be that would not be paid for by the operating services.


Lionel Chevrier: We operate planes of our own. In each district, I think from memory, seven or eight across Canada, we have certain planes that are required for inspection and investigation purposes. There are motor vehicles, there are snow blowers to keep the runways clear. It has been brought to my attention that there are 72 automobiles under this vote, 80 snow blowers, 451 trucks, 35 graders, 300 tractors, 26 station wagons,

Supply-Transport
9 rollers and 6 busses, all of which are required in connection with the operation of the various airports.


George Alexander Drew: This would toe in the airports actually operated and owned by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: As distinct from those operated by the municipalities. Is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to press it, because the information may not be readily available. However, I did ask which airports are actually owned and operated by the government, as distinct from those operated by municipalities.


Lionel Chevrier: There is quite a list of those operated by the government.


George Alexander Drew: You mentioned seven.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh no; the seven were municipally owned. There are 112 operated by the department.


George Alexander Drew: It may not be easy to break that down, but I am trying to get a picture of the large airports across the country which are part of our heavy transport system. Is it possible to give a picture of those across the country operated by municipalities and those operated by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: I think so. For instance, Gander is operated by the department, and so are Moncton, Sydney, Dorval, Malton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Windsor and Regina. The one at Calgary has been turned over by the department to the municipality. Then, those at Edmonton and Vancouver are municipally operated. Those are the three important ones of the seven mentioned a moment ago.


William Joseph Browne: A few
moments ago I referred to the accommodation for passengers who have to stay overnight at Gander, when travelling by T.C.A.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to put off the hon. member continually, so I shall deal with the matter now. Unfortunately there is no provision for the condition to which he referred. I think the only way to meet that situation would be to build a new hotel, and we find we have not the means to do that. The most important thing at Gander is to build the new airstrip which will take the heaviest planes. The next thing is to build an administration building, which is badly needed and figures largely in our plans. Unfortunately however we have not been

able to convince treasury officials that it is of such priority that it should be done now. We have convinced them however as to the airstrip. Then there are a number of other developments which must be considered before the matter the hon. member has mentioned.


William Joseph Browne: I suggest there should be runways so that the heaviest planes could be accommodated because, as he knows, Gander is one of the most important airports in the world, with so many planes landing there. It would be a great mistake to neglect enlarging and straightening the runways so that they could be used by heavy planes. Do I take it that that is going to be done?


Lionel Chevrier: We have definite plans for
development, and the largest item in the construction vote in these estimates is for Gander.


Mr. Gibson:: I wish to assist the minister
and also the hon. member for St. John's West. Gander has become a kind of gateway to Canada. Often it is the only place in Canada that Americans going to New York see. I understand the facilities there are pretty ghastly. I have had some personal knowledge of that within the last couple of days. The way we handle passengers going through there is no credit to Canada.


George Alexander Drew: I do think this is a subject
which has some importance, and that goes beyond the temporary convenience or otherwise of the passengers who have been compelled to wait over at Gander. Gander itself is some distance away from the larger centres of Newfoundland. Those who actually come down at that point have no facilities other than those provided at the airport.
As has been said by the hon. member who has just spoken, there is a question of public relations involved, as well as that of the comfort of the passengers. I cannot help comparing in my own mind the facilities available at either Gander or Goose with those available at Keflavik. I am not suggesting for one moment-indeed it would be inconsistent if I did so-any extravagant development, in view of certain of the things I have been saying. On the other hand there is a difference between extravagance and employing the expenditures which must be made for other things in a way that they will give some permanent facilities in these places where they are of considerable importance. Without raising this as a criticism of the past-because we all know that during

the last war certain things had to be undertaken-we do know that facilities could have been built in particular places, and that such facilities might have been used afterward, if the future expansion of aviation could have been visualized.
Having regard to the expansion that is going to take place in the air services it would seem to me that the wisdom of constructing something of the same type of accommodation as is offered by the hotel at Keflavik, at both Gander and Goose-and at Goose it would need to be on a much smaller scale than at Gander-should be given serious consideration. In the very nature of air transport, and it will be no less true with the introduction of jet aircraft, Gander and Goose will be extremely important stopping-off places under certain weather conditions. The facilities available at those points may to a very considerable extent be the deciding factor as to whether or not aircraft from the United States which constitute the major flow of transatlantic traffic will be satisfied to use those airports, or would be more inclined to expand the airports at the nearest points in the United States.
It is well known that there are now some large airports, and that there is a tendency for United States aircraft to use those airports in the United States instead of the facilities at Gander, for this very reason. Therefore I suggest that both from the practical point of view of service and that of attracting aircraft to use those airports when weather conditions demand a stop-over, consideration should be given to the location of certain defence construction projects at those places, and of a type which would be suitable both for training accommodation now and for hotel accommodation in years ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
521.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,203,247.
John Lambert Gibson: Have any facilities been provided at Cassidy airport just outside Nanaimo to take care of night traffic?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps we could deal with that under item 523.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction services-
522.	Administration, $749,582.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a matter which comes to my mind now, because I do not believe it could be discussed under item 523. I would hesitate to take up the time of the committee in a discussion of the matter if I felt it was one of purely local interest. I would also hesitate to suggest an expenditure of money 80709-159J
Supply-Transport
to the extent involved in connection with a matter of purely local interest. I am referring at the moment to the necessity for building a strip or airport, whatever one may call it, on which wheeled aircraft could land at Prince Rupert, British Columbia. I have said that this is not a matter of purely local interest, because I am convinced it is important to all traffic on the Pacific coast of British Columbia from Victoria at the south to Alaska at the north. It is of importance to the Pacific air traffic serving the United States and Alaska. It is essential to the east-west service from the Pacific coast in those latitudes connected with Edmonton and other points on the prairies.
Because of its value in connection with defence it is of more than local interest. I am not going to set myself up as an expert on defence matters, but I would leave with the committee the thought that if there is only one place on the mainland of the Pacific coast north of Vancouver where aircraft can be landed so as to give quick connections with the transcontinental railway and highway systems of the continent, then I suggest and submit it is of considerable importance to the country as a whole.
The situation up there is such that we are now on the main line operations of Canadian Pacific Air Lines from Vancouver. In order to get into Prince Rupert and make connections for points on the mainland of British Columbia, north of say Ocean Falls, this Canadian Pacific Air Lines plane has to set down at Sandspit on the Queen Charlotte islands when passengers and other traffic are then transferred to the mainland by a Canso-amphibian plane. The nearest point at which.-any form of wheeled aircraft can. set down on the mainland is at Terrace, some 95 miles inland from Prince Rupert which, as I shall, mention in a moment, is not regarded as suitable for traffic of this kind. The Canso service by C.P.A. is an amphibious service which lands and takes off from the water at Prince Rupert, because there is no other place at which you can land or take off.
This has been requested and demanded for some time. In so far as the area which it would serve is concerned, the request or demand is greatly aggravated at the present time by the tremendous expansion in civil activities in that part of British Columbia, which has nothing to do with the temporary and perhaps somewhat artificial stimulation that we sometimes get as a result of defence contracts.
As two examples I would mention the fact that eight miles from Prince Rupert there started operation this month the Columbia

Supply-Transport
Cellulose Company which has completed a mill at a cost of some $30 million to $35 million. This also applies-I am sticking strictly to the item-to another development which I take pride in drawing to the attention of the committee. An announcement appeared in the daily press of Canada today that in the Skeena district the Aluminum Company of Canada is to start immediately a development which will involve the expenditure of $160 million in the immediate future and of approximately $500 million before it is completed.
Projects and businesses of this ::ize cannot be served by any but the most modern, up to date and speedy transportation. For these reasons I submit that the department should give the most favourable and sympathetic consideration to the building of this airstrip.
You might say, and with reason, "Well, can't you get by with the Canso service?" I notice by recent reports in the paper that the Canso is having to make three trips a day between the island and the mainland in order to handle the traffic from Vancouver to Prince Rupert via the Queen Charlotte islands. The time will come, and I am afraid it will not be long, when the Canso aircraft in that service will have reached the stage where the Department of Transport will no longer permit them to fly in commercial service.
It is no secret that they were purchased by C.P.A. following the war at considerably less than their cost new would be. The cost of replacement with new aircraft, I say without fear of contradiction, would be so great that it would make the operation of the service prohibitive unless they were going to receive a large subsidy, which I do not think is likely.
I said that the matter was not of local concern. It has received the support of such disinterested bodies as the British Columbia aviation council, which has filed with the department a comprehensive brief on the subject. It has also the support of the associated boards of trade of central British Columbia, of the British Columbia-Yukon chamber of mines and of the Vancouver board of trade. It has also the support of practically all the local boards of trade and chambers of commerce in that district.
The site at which the residents there suggest an airport can be built feasibly is on Tugwell island, which is approximately six and a half to seven miles from the wharf at Prince Rupert and which could be served by small boats. This is all entirely protected water. I can assure the committee that I could talk for at least forty minutes outlining the details
[Mr. Applewhalte.l
of this project, but I shall not do that. At this time I am merely going to suggest that it has been reported by engineers and others familiar with the aviation business and employed in the aviation business that runways can be built of 6,000 feet, 6,600 feet,
7,000	feet, or if necessary, 8,000 feet in length.
The 6,000-foot runway can be built at a reasonable cost. The 7,000-foot runway can be built at quite a possible cost. I admit that the last 1,000 feet of runway would be expensive in proportion to the rest. The island provides sea level approaches at both ends, as do all islands. The island itself is of glacial gravel; there is no rock involved.
There is only one other point-what are the alternatives? I know what I am talking about in dealing with these. One alternative is at Sandspit, which is on an island across Hecate strait, some 80 odd miles over some of the roughest waters on the coast of British Columbia. It is considered by the leading air line there to have no value for future commercial aviation and the weather is stated to be less good on the average than at Tugwell island.
The next alternative is at Annette on the Alaskan side of the boundary. The weather there is reported definitely as being turbulent and there are no highways or railway connections.
Terrace and Kitimat are both on the mainland and have been reported by the industry as not being suitable for main line operations.
I suggest that the time has come to give this development favourable consideration, especially in view of the defence possibilities.


Lionel Chevrier: I know the hon. gentleman
has a keen interest in this airport because he has brought it to our attention before. Unfortunately there is no item in our estimates providing for an extension there, but in view of the reasons which he has placed on the record I can assure him that the department will be glad to give it further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
523.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $6,498,350.
Hazen Robert Argue: I was pleased to hear the
minister state earlier this evening that $300,000 is provided in the estimates this year for improvements at the Regina airport. Can the minister state what is involved in this expenditure and whether the runways and other facilities will be extended
to the point where North Star aircraft may
come down?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee would want to know what the main items in this vote are. As I stated a moment ago, there is an expenditure of $1,250,000 provided for additional runways at Gander. There is a substantial amount in this vote for developments at Regina that will provide in due course for the construction of a new runway which is required there. It will cost far more to builcf the new runway but we are putting in this amount now because it will take some time before the development can be completed.
There is an item of $500,000 for Vancouver where we propose to construct a new runway. The rest of the vote is made up of smaller items such as $272,000 for the completion of the airport at Saint John, New Brunswick. There is also an item for the completion of the program at Dorval which was begun last year, and this particular amount is for the final payment on the runway. There are a number of other items which are small in comparison with these four. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked if there was anything for Cassidy. There is an amount of $16,000 for lights and a substantial amount for a radio range which has been passed already.


William Joseph Browne: Is there
anything for Torbay? The accommodation at Torbay is very limited. There is not enough accommodation.


Lionel Chevrier: There are several amounts
for Torbay, installation of lighting on taxi way, $4,500; lowering of water mains, $6,500; replacing control tower, $8,000; repairs and addition to heating lines, $15,000; recapping of concrete apron with asphalt, $53,000. So far as Toronto is concerned, at Malton airport there is construction of a taxi way, $225,000.


William Joseph Browne: Speaking
about Torbay, I wonder whether it has been brought to the minister's attention that there is not enough accommodation in the waiting room at Torbay for people to sit down. There are only a few seats. The place is generally crowded with people standing around. There is not enough accommodation to sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: It is an airport belonging
to the Department of National Defence but operated by us on a caretaker basis. It is not felt, because of its military nature, that there should be a greater expansion of the present facilities in so far as the waiting room is concerned.


William Joseph Browne: That is absurd because we do not expect to be at war for the rest of our lives.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend may think it is absurd, but I am telling him there is no provision for it in these estimates.


William Joseph Browne: I ask the
minister to take into consideration the matter of providing suitable accommodation for people who have to make use of Torbay in travelling on planes. There is only one room there not more than 15 or 20 feet square. Sometimes there are a lot of passengers there and a lot of their friends with them to see them off or to meet them. I think the least we can expect is accommodation as good as they have at some of the other airports such as Sydney. If the minister is not completely responsible for that airport, at least he has an interest in it, and I think he should take that into consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid it is impossible to look after all the requirements that are necessary in the civilian airports of this country. I tried to indicate a while ago what the position was. We have plans that unfortunately we cannot put into effect because of the higher priority requirements of national defence. Until that position is cleared, much as I should like to tell my hon. friend that it will be done or it will be considered, I am afraid I cannot at this stage.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said that the $300,000 for the Regina airport would not be nearly enough to complete the plans of the department. Would the minister give the committee some idea of what these plans are and how long it is anticipated it will take to complete them?


Lionel Chevrier: This item is for the construction of one runway and a taxi strip. It amounts to $300,000, and it is the first stage of the runway which will probably be completed next year.


Harry Oliver White: Will the
minister indicate what the plans are for Crumlin airport at London?


Lionel Chevrier: There is nothing in these estimates for London.


Howard Charles Green: The minister was going to say something about the purchase of the Vancouver airport, but apparently the only item in this vote is for the extension of a runway, or is it for a new runway?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a new runway.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position now with regard to the dominion taking over the airport? We understood from press dispatches about two weeks ago that an agreement had been reached under which the government would take over the airport entirely. Is that the case, and if so, what are the terms of the agreement?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No agreement has been reached. I received representations from a city council delegation barely two weeks ago. I listened to their representations in which they asked us to take over the airport, and we are giving the matter consideration. It means the sending of some people out there to talk things over with the city officials, but there is nothing definite at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has given a general outline of some of the larger expenditures. He mentioned Regina, which is certainly necessary. I should like to secure from him a statement indicating what other expenditures are to be made for the construction or acquisition of buildings or lands and new equipment in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. Warren:: Before we get away too far-


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to answer the hon. member? At Saskatoon there is provision for repairs to a double hangar amounting to $20,000. There is an additional small item for Saskatoon of $3,500. Then there is an item for Swift Current of $2,500; Moose Jaw, $57,000; two additional items for Saskatoon, installation of new heating unit in garage, $6,000, and construction of vaults for runway lighting transformers, $4,000; two additional items for Swift Current, which I overlooked a moment ago, repairs to hangar roof, $20,000, and repairs to runway, $17,000; North Battleford, $3,000.


John George Diefenbaker: What was Moose Jaw?


Lionel Chevrier: Repairs to runway and other facilities, $57,000; Yorkton, installation of fighting system, $4,500; Yorkton, construction of vaults for runway fighting transformers, $3,000. There are several items for Winnipeg, the main ones being improvement of terminal facilities, $75,000; repairs to hangar, $25,000; and repairs to east-west runway and north taxi strip, $38,000. At The Pas there is provision of pumping system and water supply pump house, $5,000; Brandon, $20,000; Dauphin, $30,000.


John George Diefenbaker: What are those for, runways?


Lionel Chevrier: Embarras, Alberta, $48,000; Fort McMurray, $10,000; Grande Prairie, $10,000; Grande Prairie, another item, $60,000, reconditioning and extending of field drainage; Lethbridge, $40,000, and a considerable number of items in the Northwest Territories.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask the minister what the plans are for the Ottawa airport and what expenditure is contemplated for this year?
TMr. Green.]


Lionel Chevrier: There is a substantial plan for the development of Uplands airport which has been worked out in co-operation with the Department of National Defence, arising out of the committee I mentioned a moment ago. It is a three-stage plan which provides for the construction of runways. The first stage for this year is the construction of two runways. The contract has already been awarded and it amounts roughly to $1,500,000.


George Alexander Drew: That is actual construction this year?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right. The contract has been awarded and the contractor is now on the job.


George Alexander Drew: Is any part of that to be applied to the improvement of the building used for the accommodation of passengers?


Lionel Chevrier: No; the whole of this
amount is for the construction of a new runway.


Ralph Melville Warren: I was wondering if the
Minister of Transport could not save a few of these dollars and use them to build us a bridge from Morrison's island to Pembroke.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: I do not think that is out of
order. This is something we have needed for fifty years.


George Alexander Drew: Are they putting in an air
service there? Coming back to the building at the airport here, I think we should have in mind facilities consistent with those ordinarily available at corresponding airports. I do not subscribe to the idea that everything should be done on an elaborate scale simply because Ottawa happens to be the capital of Canada, but it is the centre of a great many activities and particularly those related to the business of government, which uses air transportation to a greater extent each year; and the accommodation at Uplands airport is not in keeping with the importance of that airport. In the first place the building is too small. In the second place a very important consideration at a point where many passengers are meeting and changing planes is some opportunity to get meals and other things passengers require. If it is not considered advisable to actually change the building at the present time to provide proper accommodation, I do believe consideration should be given to a temporary concession of some kind for facilities of that nature. Speaking as a member with a very direct interest in that airport, and also as one who uses it considerably, I must say it is very noticeable that

its facilities are really less satisfactory than perhaps at any airport of similar importance elsewhere in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree substantially with
what the hon. member has said in connection with the administraiion building, but I think he will agree with me that it would be foolish to spend large sums of money there when the whole plan provides for a change of site. While this three-stage plan I referred to a moment ago means the construction of air facilities, it also means that a new administration building will have to be provided. How soon it will be possible to do that I do not know, but I can assure my hon. friend that all the buildings put up by national defence will be new buildings, and we propose to set aside a site for a new administration building. Incidentally I am reminded by someone here that most of the new site is in the constituency of my colleague the hon. member for Russell.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, the location is changed
slightly, but that is quite apart from the point; and the minister will have noticed that I qualified the remark I was making because of my recognition of that fact. But it is an airport of importance to the whole of this community and, I suggest, to the whole of the country. Now that the point has been raised, while I may be simply emphasizing something that has been under discussion may I seek to impress upon the department the tremendous importance of a complete co-ordination of plans between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport in regard to construction of this nature. I have already conceded that with the tremendous expansion during the last war it was not possible to fully anticipate the extension of air service that was going to take place. But recognizing now the increasing rate at which air transportation is becoming part of our general system of transportation in this country I would suggest that every effort be made to construct defence buildings at locations where they will be of subsequent use in the plans for civil aviation in the years ahead.
I am not suggesting that it could have been avoided in many cases, but we all know that many costly buildings were disposed of after the war for comparatively small sums because they had been erected in localities where they could not be used. No doubt that was bound to happen in some cases; nevertheless there were many instances in which airports could have been sited more effectively in relation to future civil aviation development. Right across Canada today plans have been worked out by municipalities for shorter air services,
Supply-Transport
what are described as feeder lines. Those plans should be considered in the construction carried on both by this department and by national defence. Just as one example, I know plans have been carried forward quite far for an airport that would serve the cities of Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo and Galt. If a new airport is to be built anywhere in that area 1 would suggest that it be built in complete co-operation and co-ordination between the Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence and the municipalities, so that after its military use has become unnecessary it may be put into civilian service. I would also point out that to a substantial extent it could probably provide civilian service at the same time the military activities were being carried out. I am sure there must be similar examples right across the country, and I do believe this is a time to carry out an integration of plans between the Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence and the municipalities to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.


Harry Oliver White: The minister has made the statement that no provision has been made in these estimates for the airport at London. In view of the fact that supplementary estimates will be presented; in view of the further fact that at the London airport there is a very active reserve air force squadron, and the further fact that this is a thickly populated area, I would urge that consideration be given to including sufficient funds in the supplementary estimates to make provision for the improvement of the airport at that point.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for London has already made representations to me along those lines, and I shall be glad to give them consideration together with the representations just made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
524.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed In the estimates, $310,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: My recollection is that a year or two ago a program was announced under which the Department of Transport would pay $100 to civilian flying clubs for each pilot who got his wings as a result of the training he took with that club. Then, I believe there was to be in addition a payment of $100 to every pilot so qualified who would join the reserve air force. Will the minister tell us how many pilots have been qualified through flying clubs under this program?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, last year we spent $148,000 which provided for the payment of $100 to 76 clubs and schools, and $100 to 765 pilots.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have I got the basis correct? It is $100 per pilot qualified?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and per club.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That means there were 765 pilots who were qualified last year?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Through flying clubs?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, and there is a further provision in these estimates for $250,000 which we expect to pay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not the comparative figure at the moment, but would that figure be an increase over the previous year?


Lionel Chevrier: A substantial increase.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This program appears to be producing results?


Lionel Chevrier: It is, very much so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister know what proportion of the pilots have joined the reserve air force?


Mr, Chevrier:: I am informed 22 to date.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Out of a total of something over a thousand?


Lionel Chevrier: A total of 1,279 in 1950-51.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air transport board-
52S.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the International Civil Aviation Organization, $247,741.
Howard Charles Green: On item 528, which is the air transport board, the Turgeon commission recommended that the work of this board should be taken over by the board of transport commissioners. Can the minister tell us whether anything of that nature is to be done during the present fiscal year, or will the air transport board be continuing for the year?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any doubt but that the air transport board will continue as it is for the present year.


Howard Charles Green: What about the long-range plan?


Lionel Chevrier: No decision has been made on that yet, as I indicated earlier. There is no change from the statement I have already made.


Howard Charles Green: This vote includes some funds for representation at the international civil aviation organization. Why does that representation come from the air transport board?


Lionel Chevrier: This vote used to be paid by external affairs, and it has been transferred from them to us. It is to provide for the permanent delegation at ICAO in Montreal. There is Mr. Booth, who is the main delegate, with two or three others, and this is a provision for the payment of their salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
529, Salaries of commissioners, administration, operation and maintenance, $681,220.
Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with considerable interest the other day to the statement by the Minister of Transport in relation to the box car situation in western Canada. I am pleased that the minister was able to report that some considerable improvement has taken place. I do not need to go into the details he outlined in that statement, but the net balance of Canadian box cars in the United States has been reduced from 18,000 to about 7,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not see how he can discuss box cars under the board of transport commissioners item. There was an item under which we could have discussed that, and we did discuss it quite fully. I am asking the chairman to rule that this is not an item under which we could discuss box cars. I hope my hon. friend will assist me, because after all I am anxious, in all fairness to myself and to the committee, to get on with the work. There has been no attempt at curtailing discussion, I am sure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just on the point of order, I want to point out to the minister that the board of transport commissioners certainly has something to do with the box car situation because I have a clipping-I have not got it with me-which indicates that a few weeks ago this question was discussed by the freight association before the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: But that is a different thing altogether. An application was made to the board of transport commissioners asking the board to impose a maximum loading order on box cars. This has nothing lo do with the movement of grain, and it is th" r ' ways that provide the box cars for the movement of grain, not the board of trao-porx commissioners.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, but the maximum loading-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want tc ge. ,uto an argument with my hon. friend tha-. will continue for ten or fifteen minute.-. If the chairman rules it is in order, I shall sit and listen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there not something in the news tonight, to the effect that the board of transport commissioners have made a ruling with respect to box cars?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Even though I
should like the discussion to be as full as possible, I think that we ought to take into consideration the fact that when the first administration item of this department was put before the committee, this matter of the allocation of box cars throughout the country was fully discussed. Today the minister says that does not come under this item. I think hon. members should refrain from referring to this matter again.
It is also true that matters concerning applications made before the board should not be discussed under this item, which is a provision for the salaries of the commissioners and the employees.


Percy Ellis Wright: But, Mr. Chairman, the board of transport commissioners very definitely has something to do with the allocation of box cars between the various industries in this country, for instance, as to whether they will be used for the pulp and paper industry or whether they will be sent to western Canada to be used for the movement of grain.


Lionel Chevrier: If it will assist my hon. friends, I shall tell them that there will be an opportunity to discuss this at a later date?


Percy Ellis Wright: On what date?


Lionel Chevrier: On the supplementary
estimates.


Percy Ellis Wright: If it is in order on the supplementary estimates why is it not in order now?


Lionel Chevrier: Not on this item.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under what item?


Lionel Chevrier: Under the administration item, just as it was discussed under the administration item before.


Percy Ellis Wright: If it can be discussed under the administration item on the supplementary estimates, why can it not be discussed now?


Lionel Chevrier: The board does not deal with box cars.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the minister mean to say that the board of transport commissioners has nothing to do with the loading and distribution of box cars?


Lionel Chevrier: This is what I wanted to avoid. My friend evidently wants to draw me into a discussion which would take five or ten minutes, and that is what I wanted
Supply-Transport
to avoid. If the chairman had ruled that this item could be discussed under this vote I would have sat and listened, but I submit that the chairman has made his ruling and I think my friend should submit to the ruling.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Chairman, I may be somewhat out of order too. I did not know under what item I could bring this matter to the attention of the minister. On previous occasions when the transport estimates were up, I asked the minister to give consideration to having a faster passenger train run between Halifax and Montreal. Since then I have learned from railway officials that it is not feasible, owing to the roadbed and other considerations, to run the train any faster. There are three trains that come from Halifax-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps the hon. member would consider asking this question on the further supplementary estimates when the administration item for the department comes before the committee. In my opinion what the hon. member is putting forward now does not come under this item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, do not questions relating to the running of trains, their speed and so on, come under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners?


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is my view- perhaps I should study the matter further- it is not in order to discuss in this committee, where we study the payments of the salaries and the operation and maintenance of the board of transport commissioners, the matters which are susceptible of being the substance of an application to be made to that board. That is my view; otherwise this item could be discussed for a long time. Probably the hon. member would like to have a certain railway line built between two points which might be the substance of an application before the board. Under the administration item suggestions of that kind could be brought forward, but I do not think on this particular item it is in order to discuss whatever might be the subject matter of an application before the board on which it might render a certain judgment. It may be that I am not exactly right in my interpretation of the rule of strict relevancy. I am quite willing to look it up and think it over further but that at the moment is the way I look at it.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: This matter of transportation is of vital importance to the maritime provinces. We are greatly handicapped, as everyone knows, because of the distance we are from the central provinces. Will the minister tell me what steps are being taken at this time to implement the findings of the royal commission?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I have already indicated
that the government have established a committee to deal with amendments to the Railway Act. It has not been found possible to submit them to the cabinet, but I hope it will be possible to do so. I hope it will be possible to implement these recommendations by legislation at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a matter that I
wish to take up under this item as well, a matter that on many occasions we have taken up at this point in the estimates, and it seems to me that it is in order; but I was waiting until some of the other hon. members had their chance to speak on matters in which they were interested.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is unusual.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out
to the hon. member that I myself recall that matters such as freight rates, and other matters as well, were discussed fully on this item, but that was because when the matter was raised prior to the estimates coming before the committee the minister had said: "Well, there will be opportunities to discuss this matter when my estimates come before the house." And by general agreement it had been understood that it would be discussed let us say on the item concerning the board of transport commissioners; but I do not think any such agreement has been made at this time that we are to discuss for instance freight rates under this item. That is why I say that we cannot consider under this item anything which may be brought up before that board and be in order. I shall study the point, but that is the way I look at it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The item is not just providing for salaries and wages. The item specifically says, "administration, operation and maintenance."


Alphonse Fournier: Is this a point of order, or what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well-


Alphonse Fournier: Well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, let me be quite frank. The question-


Alphonse Fournier: You want to talk; that is what you want to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -relates to grade crossings.


Alphonse Fournier: You have been talking all day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could have discussed that earlier, but I was sitting in my seat-


Alphonse Fournier: Are you willing to sit until twelve o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Thomas Richard: He has a cold seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say something about the subject of grade crossings.


Alphonse Fournier: That is not new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; let us maintain our usual good humour.


Lionel Chevrier: Talk till eleven o'clock. Go ahead; you are doing fine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could have made my statement on the first item, the one dealing with departmental administration, but I thought it was better to wait for the administration item of the board of transport commissioners, under whose jurisdiction this question comes, and it was under that item that we discussed it year in and year out. Therefore I submit it is in order.


Alphonse Fournier: The chairman says
you are wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to speak on it under this item because without question it comes under the administration of the board of transport commissioners and is surely in order under the item headed "administration" of the board of transport commissioners.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member refers to the railway grade crossing fund, which is included in this item, and if he looks at the detail on page 504, he will see that what is directly relevant to this item when we come to the grade crossing fund is the contribution of $1 million. I do not suppose that he could then discuss that certain railway grade crossings should be built at certain places and not at other places-


Alphonse Fournier: You do not know the hon. member; he could.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was that?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot resist that. The Minister of Public Works said: "You do not know the hon. member; he could".


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say to that is, "hear, hear". I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the item to which you have drawn my attention is a statutory item that we do not discuss at all. We are not permitted to discuss it. The item is put in for our information, but part of the information that it gives us is that the administration of the grade crossing fund is one of the items administered by the board of transport commissioners. I would gladly argue the case of the hon. member for Colchester-Hants or the hon. member for Halifax or the hon.

member for Assiniboia, and I would certainly argue my own case. I suggest, sir, that you look up the record of the previous sessions and I think you will find that we have had these discussions on this item year in and year out. But I see it is eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It looks as if we might be right on a half and half basis. We shall have to consider the matter.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the debate on-


Some hon. Members:: Tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister and I will be here.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not miss you for a lot. On Monday we will continue the debate on the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on the motion to go into supply. When we reach the committee of supply stage we will call four departments as announced when the motion was moved, and also an item of external affairs, because so many members wish to have these estimates referred to the standing committee on external affairs. Then we will proceed with the two resolutions in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) concerning Laurier house and Kingsmere park. I understand these are not contentious. Then we will take up Bills Nos. 191 and 192.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister if that means that five departments will be called when we go into committee of supply?


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that not rather a lot?


Alphonse Fournier: I thought the hon. gentleman would raise that question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why did you not deal with it before, then?


Alphonse Fournier: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have no thought of saying anything that will in any way change the pleasant mood in which the Minister of Public Works again finds himself. But I would not wish to leave the impression on Hansard that the reason for more departments not being called at this time is through any failure on the part of members on this side of the house to wish to proceed with the business of the house.
My own opinion is the time has now come for members of the house to face the fact that the business of the house could be handled much more expeditiously than it is if it were done on a more orderly basis, with knowledge in advance as to what we are going to discuss, and with some opportunity, with preparation in advance, to meet the subject we wish to discuss.
That suggestion has been made before, and I am sure many of these debates are unnecessarily lengthened by the fact that they are brought up unexpectedly and then, in the very nature of things, ideas keep occurring and new debates are precipitated through the injection of new considerations. I think that without prolonging the discussion at this time I should very properly say that if the need has now arrived for calling more departments than is customary, it is only because the business of the house is not better organized. When I say that I am not being critical directly of the Minister of Public Works, who directs the affairs of the house, but rather of the fact that we have not thus clearly defined the plans and procedure which make the business at Westminster proceed much more smoothly than it does here.


Alphonse Fournier: Generally I like to see the leader of the opposition have the last word, but this evening I think I should have it. If I said or implied that the opposition was not doing a good job, then I must apologize immediately. On the other hand I would not want the leader of the opposition to leave the impression in the house or in the country that the government is not doing a good job, too.
We try to announce in advance the work we have ahead of us. If ever the hon. member is seated on this side he will understand the difficulty we have in trying to please the opposition. It is very, very difficult to tell them in advance what we are going to do, because there are not three members on the other side of the house who would agree with

Supply-Transport
us. We have to do the best we can and hope that some time before fall we might complete our work.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
493. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals
__to provide for the payment during the fiscal
year 1951-52 to the Canadian National Railways company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951, $1,280,000.
495. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-to provide for the payment from time to -time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited (hereinafter called "the company") *of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1951, in the operations *of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding $845,000.
501. Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1951-52, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved1 by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1951 (chap. 19, statutes of 1927, as amended), $9,125,000.
503.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $14,250.
Air services-telecommunications division -
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
504.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,707,545.
505.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,499,200.
Radio Act and Regulations-
506.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $898,836.
507. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $52,850-
Radio aids to marine navigation-
508.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,819,983.
509. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $200,000.
Suppression of radio interferences-
510.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $378,803.
511. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $27,600.
512.	Issue of radio receiving licences-(transport department only), $719,668.
Telegraph and telephone service-
513.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,440,729.
514. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $450,100.
Northwest communication system-
515.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1952, $100,659.
516. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, and new equipment-capital, $361,478.
Meteorological division-
Meteorological services-
517.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,116,836.
518. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $449,350.
Civil aviation division-
519.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $768,060.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
520.	Civil aviation services, $8,808,885.
521.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,203,247.
Construction services-
522.	Administration, $749,582.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 30, 1951